Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug Wanker · May 20, 2006, 07:31 PM

Intel GMA 950 game compatibility list

---

Originally Posted by goMac

I think there is a fundamental truth of most Mac users not giving a damn about Vista technologies.

Fixed®

Anti-Spam · May 21, 2006, 12:26 AM

of course it can be compatible, Many things are software emulated.

The chart doesn't tell you that its gonna run at snails pace. My pentium II can run XP,
doesn't mean its gonna be usable.

Salty · May 21, 2006, 12:39 AM

This post is no longer about the GMA950 since we can't agree as to whether or not it's OK that Apple put it in... it is now about this poem I just wrote tonight:

Mwhaha!
Mwha… hahha!
Mwhaaa…

Do you see me?
Prancing around like a lunatic?
Escaped from a mental hospital?
Gas can in hand,
Lighter in my pocket.

Mwhaha…
Mwha… hahahha
hehehehe.
Ha!

Do you see me?
Skipping to and fro,
Clicking my heels as I leap in the air.
Pouring gasoline everywhere!
Dance my gasoline, dance!

Tee hee…
Mwha!
Ha!
Hardy har har har!

Do you see me?
Pouring gasoline onto the wood,
From end to end of this covered bridge.
See the droplets make rainbow dances,
As they mix with the rushing river.

Mwhaha!
Hehehehee,
Ho ho ho ho ho!
Merry Christmas indeed!

Do you see me?
Pulling out my lighter,
Click… click… click…
This thing never works.
Click… click,
Ahh there we go!

Giggle, Giggle,
Tickle go fickle,
Hahaha,
He… he… bloody he…

Do you see me?
Putting the flame to the wood?
Whoosh there it goes!
Watch the flames dance to their rhythm.
Watch them dance much like a lunatic.

Mwhaha,
Bwhahahahaahaha,
hehe…
Cough…

You can’t see me…
And I can’t see you.
This thick… thick smoke.
I think I’m going to choke…
This smoke… is so very thick.

Mwha cough…
Bwhaha gag…
He cough he cough he…
Hehe cough cough cough cough…

You can’t see me, And that’s fine by me.
Daddy always said never burn bridges.
But this way I’ll know you’ll never hurt me.
Though I might die of smoke inhalation,
before you have the chance.

Cough…
Cough…
Cough…
…

Good bye.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · 02:41 AM

Poems? What are you a depressed teenage girl?

Salty · May 21, 2006, 02:47 AM

Well I do have a myspace

Kidding...

That's not a depressing poem though.

dazzla · May 21, 2006, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Anti-Spam

of course it can be compatible, Many things are software emulated.

The chart doesn't tell you that its gonna run at snails pace. My pentium II can run XP,
doesn't mean its gonna be usable.

Well, it makes the distinction when the game is unplayable due to frame rates. It'll flag it there, read some of the details for the yellow/red marked games.

Eug Wanker · May 21, 2006, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Anti-Spam

of course it can be compatible, Many things are software emulated.

The chart doesn't tell you that its gonna run at snails pace. My pentium II can run XP,
doesn't mean its gonna be usable.

Next time it may help you to read the info before commenting on it.

"Quake 4* game is not playable due to low frame rates (frames per second or FPS)."

harrisjamieh · May 21, 2006, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Next time it may help you to read the info before commenting on it.

"Quake 4* game is not playable due to low frame rates (frames per second or FPS)."

I just love the next bit: "Intel is not aware of a fix or workaround for this issue." - well, duh

andreas_g4 · May 21, 2006, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

At the store I work in the GMA950 is not an issue for most customers. Please have in mind that what you experienced is not necessarily what is experienced in general.

The GMA950 probably is not hurting sales, since a lot of people want to buy a laptop as cheap as possible, and they probably would not want to pay for a GPU they never need. That said, a dedicated GPU in the black MB (which is ridiculously expensive) would have been great, but it just would hurt MBP saled too much.

Maflynn · May 21, 2006, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I think there is a fundamental problem of Mac users not really understanding Vista technologies.

Perhaps I'm missing something but why would Mac users really care to understand Vista Technologies.

I think you're missing an important point. Most people don't care about what GPUs are in their laptops. What they care about is that will the specific model do what they want it to do. For the Macbook the majority of adults yes. For Collage students who want to play the latest and greatest demanding games the answer is no, but then I'll say this, no laptop is really good had playing the latest and greatest games.

I'm still on the fence of getting a MB (not the pro). I don't play games and I'm trying to determine if selling my PB 15" is a step down, of a lateral move with the MB. I use my laptop for photography mostly when I go on my vacations/trips. I think the MB's size and ability fit very well into that need (the glossy screen is a whole other matter).

I've worked in computer stores for years and unless your a geek most customers don't care to hear what hear the string of letters and acronyms associated with the computer components.

Mike

Eug Wanker · May 21, 2006, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I'm still on the fence of getting a MB (not the pro). I don't play games and I'm trying to determine if selling my PB 15" is a step down, of a lateral move with the MB. I use my laptop for photography mostly when I go on my vacations/trips. I think the MB's size and ability fit very well into that need (the glossy screen is a whole other matter).

Which PB?

To give an example...

I use a video encoding app to convert TV shows to H.264 to leave on my iMac. My G5 2.0 iMac is roughly twice as fast as my iBook G4 1.33 was. People running the new universal Handbrake say that Core is clock-for-clock roughly about the same speed as the G5, and that a Core Duo is roughly twice as fast as a single G5 at the same clock speed.

ie. Core Duo 2.0 is close to 4 times as fast as a G4 1.33 in some apps. Apple wasn't lying in its 4-5X claim.

If your apps fall into this category, it could be a major upgrade going to a MacBook (the GPU and the glossy screen not withstanding).

Maflynn · May 21, 2006, 10:19 AM

I have the first revision of 15" alu PB (M8981LL/A)
1.25GHz, 80gig drive, I've upgraded the ram to 768meg. My other macs have their memory upgraded to over a gig. I'm on the fence to upgrade this baby or sell it and get a MB.

CharlesS · May 21, 2006, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

The GMA950 probably is not hurting sales, since a lot of people want to buy a laptop as cheap as possible, and they probably would not want to pay for a GPU they never need. That said, a dedicated GPU in the black MB (which is ridiculously expensive) would have been great, but it just would hurt MBP saled too much.

Oh BS. There used to be a 12" PowerBook which was similar in specs to the 15" but had a smaller screen and a lower price. It apparently didn't hurt sales of the 15" and 17" PowerBooks too much, since Apple kept it around for a long time.

People would continue to buy the MBP for the same reason people bought the 15" and 17" PowerBooks - the screen. Some people want or need a big screen on their laptop. That's fine. Some people don't, and now there's no option for them that doesn't use the GMA 950.

If they put a decent GPU in that black model, it would become a good deal instead of a complete rip-off, and it would probably sell like hotcakes. And since that one probably has the highest profit margin of the entire laptop line (and still would, even with the cost of a $50 video card added on), that would do nothing but bring in the $$$ for Apple.

Kerrigan · May 21, 2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

That's not a depressing poem though.

Made me depressed enough. Seriously, what the hell was that about

Rev-O · May 21, 2006, 01:55 PM

I've been so waffling on a new MacBook. I am itching to try out a MacTel, and I figure I could inload my old G4 iBook for a few hundred. Throw in iLife & iWork '06 for free (which I have been tempted to buy and that's a gets me little more suprious rationalization.
But the integrated graphics keeps hanging me up. And I don't want to shell out for a MacBook Pro. I'm don't want to dual boot and run Oblivion on a MacBook, but to me Integrated Graphics screams quick obsolesence.
Maybe I'll wait for the OS X 10.5 Leper release (hopefully this fall) and get the 10% discount.

andreas_g4 · May 21, 2006, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Oh BS. There used to be a 12" PowerBook which was similar in specs to the 15" but had a smaller screen and a lower price. It apparently didn't hurt sales of the 15" and 17" PowerBooks too much, since Apple kept it around for a long time.

People would continue to buy the MBP for the same reason people bought the 15" and 17" PowerBooks - the screen. Some people want or need a big screen on their laptop. That's fine. Some people don't, and now there's no option for them that doesn't use the GMA 950.

If they put a decent GPU in that black model, it would become a good deal instead of a complete rip-off, and it would probably sell like hotcakes. And since that one probably has the highest profit margin of the entire laptop line (and still would, even with the cost of a $50 video card added on), that would do nothing but bring in the $$$ for Apple.

No BS. It would probaly hurt sales, since since the MacBook is almost on par with the MBP, and many pro users would like to have a smaller screen for portability, adding space with a nice big display at the office. Now many still have to get a MBP to be able to run Aperture, Lightroom, Motion etc.

But we agree that the black MB is a rip-off and that it might sell that good that Apple's income won't suffer, I just think they don't want to take a chance there. And they want to distinguish the laptop line as clear as it is now.

Eug Wanker · May 21, 2006, 02:03 PM

Oh BS. There used to be a 12" PowerBook which was similar in specs to the 15" but had a smaller screen and a lower price. It apparently didn't hurt sales of the 15" and 17" PowerBooks too much, since Apple kept it around for a long time.

People would continue to buy the MBP for the same reason people bought the 15" and 17" PowerBooks - the screen. Some people want or need a big screen on their laptop. That's fine. Some people don't, and now there's no option for them that doesn't use the GMA 950.

The GeForce 5200 in the 12" PowerBook still sucked, even if it didn't suck as much as GMA 950. That's why it didn't hurt 15" and 17" sales. I do sorta agree for the screen too, but the difference here is that the PowerBook's screen was smaller too. The 13" has a very respectable 1280x800, without going overboard in the pixel density department.

BTW, the GPU in the "Power"Book was so bad that Apple refused to allow you to install Aperture on the 12" PowerBook. Ironically, you could install it on the iBook, cuz it had the Radeon 9550 (which is still low end, but noticeably better than the 12" PowerBook's GPU).

Anyways, while I agree that the crap GPU in the MacBook hurts sales, I'm guessing the sales will be superior to (or at least equal to) sales of the iBook and 12" PowerBook combined.

Chuckit · May 21, 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

For Collage students who want to play the latest and greatest demanding games or even graphically moderate games from two years ago the answer is no

Fixed for Truth.™

CharlesS · May 21, 2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

No BS. It would probaly hurt sales, since since the MacBook is almost on par with the MBP, and many pro users would like to have a smaller screen for portability, adding space with a nice big display at the office.

And what's wrong with that?! Why shouldn't pro users be able to get a smaller screen if they want one? Again, Apple's profit margin is huge on the black MacBook, so they'd get all the money anyway. Who cares if that money came from a black MacBook or from the MBP? It's still money in Apple's pocket all the same. And as I said before, there will still be plenty of people that buy the 15" and 17" versions - people that actually want the larger screen (and backlit keyboard and other goodies). IOW, people for whom those models are actually appropriate.

Witness the 17" PowerBook - its specs weren't that much better than the 15" model, but people bought the thing because of its SCREEN.

Now many still have to get a MBP to be able to run Aperture, Lightroom, Motion etc.

But given how ridiculously expensive the MBP is, I think that a lot of the people that used to get by on an iBook for those things will now simply get a Dell instead and either get the Windows equivalents of those apps or get that pirated hacked OS X version that runs on generic PCs.

It's kind of ironic and sad that whereas Apple's strength used to be in graphics, now the only way to get an affordable graphics-capable Mac laptop is to illegally hack a generic PC...

But we agree that the black MB is a rip-off and that it might sell that good that Apple's income won't suffer, I just think they don't want to take a chance there. And they want to distinguish the laptop line as clear as it is now.

But Apple's income will suffer if people hold off on the purchase. I would have liked to get a laptop for those times when I have to go somewhere and would like to bring a computer with me, but I don't want to buy a laptop with a GMA 950, I don't want to spend $2000+, and I don't want a 15" screen - I want something portable, dammit, or at least something more portable than my aging G3 Pismo with its 14" screen which fits in my backpack, but not with a lot of room to spare.

Salty · May 21, 2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Made me depressed enough. Seriously, what the hell was that about

It's about when someone's done enough damage that you basically stop thinking reasonably about them, and you simply want to make sure that they won't hurt you again... I guess.

sek929 · May 21, 2006, 03:10 PM

Yeah why could anyone possibly think THAT was depressing?

Salty · May 21, 2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

Yeah why could anyone possibly think THAT was depressing?

I dono I don't find it depressing so much as... uncomfortable. It's meant more to make people think... maybe I should repair some of those relationships people have burnt down with me.

voodoo · May 21, 2006, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I dono I don't find it depressing so much as... uncomfortable. It's meant more to make people think... maybe I should repair some of those relationships people have burnt down with me.

I thought it was much like the GMA950 in the MB.

V

Kerrigan · May 21, 2006, 04:10 PM

. . . or the heating problems in the MBP

Originally Posted by Salty

Whoosh there it goes!
Watch the flames dance to their rhythm.

greenamp · May 21, 2006, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

This post is no longer about the GMA950 since we can't agree as to whether or not it's OK that Apple put it in... it is now about this poem I just wrote tonight:

Mwhaha!
Mwha… hahha!
Mwhaaa…

Do you see me?
Prancing around like a lunatic?
Escaped from a mental hospital?
Gas can in hand,
Lighter in my pocket.

...

Serial church burner.

Chuckit · May 21, 2006, 05:20 PM

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that poetry sucks and I would much rather have a good graphics card.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · May 21, 2006, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

Yeah why could anyone possibly think THAT was depressing?

I never called it depressing.

Salty · May 21, 2006, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I have come to the inescapable conclusion that poetry sucks and I would much rather have a good graphics card.

Actually speaking of poetry, I'm kind of worried about the keyboard on the MacBook... anyone able to say if it feels as comfortable as a 12 inch PowerBook's?

goMac · May 22, 2006, 12:12 AM

I had a nice reply but my laptop was at a party and one of my friends with a low alcohol tolerance thought it would be fun to play the "hit the power button and then enter" game. Afterwards I locked my laptop and put it in the corner, and he spent some more time typing in letters trying to get my password.

I'll try to bring it down to a paragraph.

Vista matters because it's what our 10.5 is going to look like. A lot of Mac users like to think that Vista is copying OS X, and that's not really true, it's really leapfrogging it. Tiger was a lot of Apple trying to rush Vista features out before Vista arrives, not that that's a bad thing. We get those features now, while our windows friends have to wait. But what we have isn't nearly as complete as Vista.

In probably a year, Mac OS X will be the only operating system left not maximizing the use of the graphics card for drawing the interface. Windows will have Avalon. Linux will have XGL. Sun has Looking Glass. The best Apple has is Quartz Extreme, which has been fine for the past few years, but everyone is going to have something better soon. Quartz Extreme was mostly about getting around speed issues, while all the other new systems are about adding graphics functionality.

Again, I don't think Apple is going to want to be left behind.

MaxPower2k3 · May 22, 2006, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Actually speaking of poetry, I'm kind of worried about the keyboard on the MacBook... anyone able to say if it feels as comfortable as a 12 inch PowerBook's?

feels very similar to the powerbook keyboards, which is a good thing. aesthetically, the design works well for the macbook; very simple, clean edges all around

Salty · May 22, 2006, 12:48 AM

Like the spacing doesn't feel awkward? If the keyboard is nice I think I might get one... if not I'll stick with my 12 inch PowerBook I think.

Eug Wanker · May 22, 2006, 01:08 AM

The key spacing is exactly the same as any standard keyboard. It just looks different because of the different design and shape of the keys.

chabig · May 22, 2006, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

The best Apple has is Quartz Extreme, which has been fine for the past few years, but everyone is going to have something better soon.

Right. Keep telling yourself that.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by chabig

Right. Keep telling yourself that.

I suppose Avalon, XGL, and Looking Glass don't really exist.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 01:25 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xgl

From Wikipedia On XGL:

"Rationale

Structuring all rendering on top of OpenGL could potentially simplify video driver development. It removes the artificial separation of 2D and 3D acceleration. This is advantageous as 2D operations are frequently (and counterintuitively, since 3D would imply 2D) unaccelerated. It also removes all driver-dependent code from the X server itself, and allows for accelerated Compose and Render operations independent of the graphics driver. Additionally, compose managers can use the OpenGL API for rendering, allowing for quite amazing effects. It has been reported that affiliates from NVIDIA and ATI are willing to release binary-only drivers for an OpenGL-based X server once a defined API has been established, though on the Xorg Developers Conference 2006 it was indicated by NVIDIA that they are quite happy with the existing driver interface as well. The idea of extending this is being worked on in the AIGLX project by the Fedora Project. [9]"

"Competitors

Hardware-accelerated OpenGL window and desktop rendering, limited to using OpenGL for texture composition, has been in use in Mac OS X, in a technology called Quartz Extreme, since Mac OS X v10.2. Quartz 2D Extreme is an enhancement of this feature and more directly comparable to Xgl. Like Xgl, Quartz 2D Extreme brings OpenGL acceleration to all 2D drawing operations (not just desktop compositing) and ships with Mac OS X v10.4, but is disabled by default pending a formal declaration of production-readiness. The very pioneer seems to be Sun Microsystems when researching this kind of features on a GUI, on a project named Project Looking Glass (http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/details.xml).
Microsoft has declared its intention to provide a similar technology based on DirectX rather than OpenGL, named DWM, as part of its upcoming operating system Windows Vista."

Eug Wanker · May 22, 2006, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

I suppose Avalon, XGL, and Looking Glass don't really exist.

(and a bunch more of techno mumbo jumbo)

We get it. You're fascinated by Windows Vista's next-gen features. However, most people frankly don't care. Get over it.

And I say this as someone who mildly cares...

Chuckit · May 22, 2006, 01:28 AM

Perhaps you should explain the practical benefit of XGL that OS X would be missing.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

We get it. You're fascinated by Windows Vista's next-gen features. However, most people frankly don't care. Get over it.

Windows Vista? No. Every single operating system is getting this feature. The only two that I can think of that isn't is Mac OS X. That's not to say it won't. My point is that more than likely it will also. Which is where the GMA950 starts to really suck.

Even Linux has already replaced X11 with an Avalon like system.

Eug Wanker · May 22, 2006, 01:31 AM

OK, fixed then:

"We get it. However, most people frankly don't care. Get over it.

And I say this as someone who mildly cares..."

goMac · May 22, 2006, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Perhaps you should explain the practical benefit of XGL that OS X would be missing.

That was part of the post. It removes the barrier between 2D and 3D graphics. All the current Mac OS X "3D effects" aren't 3D. They're 2D transforms. That means they're CPU intensive, they don't live update, and they're generally dirty. Ever wonder why there aren't API's available for developers to do cube effects, or similar things? They aren't real. They're 2D hacks.

Not to mention OpenGl's integration into OS X is... painful. OpenGL integration on XGL, and DirectX integration on Avalon is pretty awesome. There's a lot of practical uses for it. An example of OS X being broken in this regard is what happens when you minimize and OpenGL window to the dock.

Also, interfaces implemented via GPU acceleration are very snappy. Quartz 2D Extreme is very snappy. But again, Quartz 2D Extreme doesn't add any new functionality for developers.

If everyone would like Apple to keep pilling on fake 3D effects, bogging down the OS, and draining CPU power, while OS X's interface has a lack of snappy, that's fine. I'd rather they'd fix the window system so it's snappy like it's supposed to be, and so they don't have to keep in hacking in fake 3D excuses for eye candy.

Then maybe I OS X could actually minimize OpenGL to the dock. That would be a tiny, but great little start to getting out of this aging window manager.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

OK, fixed then:

"We get it. However, most people frankly don't care. Get over it.

And I say this as someone who mildly cares..."

You know what this whole thing reminds me of?

My sister is still in high school, and they're getting ready to give laptops to all the kids. The kids sit around all the time and whine because they don't get the point of having a laptop in class. They see laptops as something useless forced upon them. They look at other schools and don't get what's so great about having a laptop over textbooks and pencils and paper. What they don't understand is that because they don't have laptops, the teachers don't teach in a way that makes laptops relevant. If laptops were introduced, the teachers would be able to teach in a way that would make laptops relevant. But they can't do that until there are laptops at the school.

In the same way, Windows and Linux are getting ready for the next generation of graphically intense programs. Mac users are sitting around whining about not getting the point. Maybe as a developer it's easier to see the point because I spend my time looking at other people's programs that aren't out yet, and I'm seeing very cool stuff for Windows built on Avalon. But Mac users can't point to any OS X programs which could use an advanced window manager. The problem is that because OS X doesn't have an advanced window manager, those kinds of programs can't exist on OS X in the first place.

Gamoe · May 22, 2006, 01:57 AM

I'm not crazy about integrated graphics. Still, I plan on purchasing a MacBook. However, if Apple offered a MacBook that was exactly the same as the current offering, but with a half-decent dedicated GPU, for a $100 difference, I would pay that premium and go with the GPU MacBook. I just hope if they ever do that that they don't just offer it in black (I prefer white on the MacBook)!

Eug Wanker · May 22, 2006, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

You know what this whole thing reminds me of?

My sister is still in high school, and they're getting ready to give laptops to all the kids. The kids sit around all the time and whine because they don't get the point of having a laptop in class. They see laptops as something useless forced upon them. They look at other schools and don't get what's so great about having a laptop over textbooks and pencils and paper. What they don't understand is that because they don't have laptops, the teachers don't teach in a way that makes laptops relevant. If laptops were introduced, the teachers would be able to teach in a way that would make laptops relevant. But they can't do that until there are laptops at the school.

In the same way, Windows and Linux are getting ready for the next generation of graphically intense programs. Mac users are sitting around whining about not getting the point. Maybe as a developer it's easier to see the point because I spend my time looking at other people's programs that aren't out yet, and I'm seeing very cool stuff for Windows built on Avalon. But Mac users can't point to any OS X programs which could use an advanced window manager. The problem is that because OS X doesn't have an advanced window manager, those kinds of programs can't exist on OS X in the first place.

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. I wonder if you may have lost sight as to what is important to the end user in this particular instance. ie. In the here and now.

I was in the store yesterday and there was a kid looking to get a MacBook, while clutching a copy of World of Warcraft in his hands. It was 100% obvious he didn't frickin' give a ratz @zz what 10.5 or Vista or 10.6 or Linux will offer in cool new windowing technologies or whatever. He just wanted to play WoW, surf, and have something to help him do his homework. And you know what? I understand his point of view completely. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he's running Mac OS X 10.4. Tiger for at least the next two or three years, cuz he's not going to be the one first in line to pay C$150 to buy 10.5 when it first comes out.

Yes, GMA 950 sucks, but why you think it sucks is important to about 0.1% of the population.

P.S. I think he's gonna get an iMac instead... but only because the screen is bigger, and because it will be better for WoW. Oh and because his mom didn't like the irritating glare that was so obvious on the MacBooks in the store.

P.P.S. Having seen the MacBook in person now, I'd have to say for my purposes, the number one problem with the unit is NOT the GPU. It's that damn glossy screen. ie. I agree with that kid's mom. The glossy screen is quite annoying in certain lighting.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. As a developer, I think you may have lost sight as to what is important to the end user in this particular instance.

I was in the store yesterday and there was a kid looking to get a MacBook, while clutching a copy of World of Warcraft in his hands. It was 100% obvious he didn't frickin' give a ratz @zz what 10.5 will offer in cool new windowing technologies. He just wanted to play WoW and do his homework. And you know what? I understand his point of view completely. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he's running Mac OS X 10.4. Tiger for at least the next two years, cuz he's not going to be the one first in line to pay C$150 to buy 10.5 when it first comes out.

Yes, GMA 950 sucks, but in terms of why you think it sucks is important to about 0.1% of the population.

P.S. I think he's gonna get an iMac instead... but only because the screen is bigger, and because it will be better for WoW. Oh and because his mom didn't like the irritating glare that was so obvious on the MacBooks in the store.

I'd dispute that. Look at the Tiger adoption rates. Within a few months, as many people were running Tiger as they were Panther. And frequently, people upgrade their operating systems to run new software that requires those operating system. If I design some neat application under Mac OS X 10.5 with Whiz Bang Graphics Extreme, I can't in good faith tell a Macbook user "if you upgrade to 10.5 you can run my app!", even if the user was willing to upgrade to 10.5. In that same way, if little Billy wants to run Super Presentation Maker, with Whiz Bang Graphics supreme support, and his parents are willing to upgrade the OS to do it... well... that's going to be a problem with the Macbook.

I'll also note I work for an organization that currently maintains several thousand iBooks. They will all be upgraded to the latest OS at the end of the year. We will be ordering 7000 more Macbooks over the summer, and we will be upgrading them every year also to the latest OS. They better run new OS's well, or else we will probably not be as eager to buy more laptops.

GPU accelerated interfaces are very important because they are the first line of interaction with the user, and they are usually the root of any general performance issues in above-kernel land. GPU's are important because you can save CPU usage by moving that usage to the GPU.

GPU's are needed for much more than games these days. There is a lot of vast untapped power in the GPU that a lot of software companies are using to make their applications run fast and snappy.

Funny thing is the Macbook's graphics card wasn't even good enough for the kid. Games are getting much more popular than they used to be also.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 02:49 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=xgl&pl=true

Here is a demo of XGL. The stuff at the beginning is ok, but the OpenGL stuff at the end is really cool. This is stuff that, quite simply, there is no way in hell OS X could do.

If Apple had a nicer windowing system, OpenGL would probably run a lot better too...

CharlesS · May 22, 2006, 03:11 AM

That video feels like it's playing way too fast. Stuff flies by before I can really figure out what's going on.

goMac · May 22, 2006, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

That video feels like it's playing way too fast. Stuff flies by before I can really figure out what's going on.

It's a bug in Google video. Use the >> to skip ahead instead of using the scrubber.

Edit: If the video starts too fast use << once and it seems to go the right speed.

IceEnclosure · May 22, 2006, 04:01 AM

goMac, you're coming off as a bit of a nutter, and you can't admit that a typical iBook (now MB) user doesn't need freak-a-leek graphics capabilities.

Want a Mac gaming rig? Wait for a tower or get a 15" or 17" MBP.

Jeez man. Show us another DEMO please!!!!

CharlesS · May 22, 2006, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure

Wait for a tower

For $2000+ and definitely not portable

or get a 15" or 17" MBP.

For $2000+ and not portable enough

goMac · May 22, 2006, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure

goMac, you're coming off as a bit of a nutter, and you can't admit that a typical iBook (now MB) user doesn't need freak-a-leek graphics capabilities.

Want a Mac gaming rig? Wait for a tower or get a 15" or 17" MBP.

Jeez man. Show us another DEMO please!!!!

Right. And 15 years ago only those crazy people who cared about numbers with decimals needed an FPU.

Crazy people. End users don't need snappy interfaces by offloading the interface to the GPU. When Vista's interface is far more responsive than OS X's we'll all just sit around telling ourselves no one really cares about user experience anyway. Especially not the average user.