[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

For $2000+ and definitely not portable


For $2000+ and not portable enough

go get an Alienware, that'll save ya.



edited: forgot the quotes

[goMac]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure

go get an Alienware then, that'll save ya!

I don't need to. I know that Apple will unveil their next window server, it'll be snappy, and it'll run great on my Macbook Pro that I'll buy at the end of the year.

Sadly, more than likely I won't be able to create anything cool with it for Macbook not pro users because of the GMA950.

[krillbee]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

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.

agreed, that glossy screen is yucky. i think the old ibooks are a lot more attractive than the new macbook, on the exterior (part of that has to do with the new funky keyboard too and other things).

anyways, the thing about apple is that they never like to admit that they were wrong. it takes years for them to correct mistakes, because they want to do it subtely. that probably means that we'll be dealing with the glossy screen for quite a long time on the macbooks and maybe even on the macbookpros.


i also completey understand why apple wont put a better videocard in their macbook. if they did, then the macbookpros, probably wouldnt sell, because their only better feature then would be the bigger screen and the 'superdrive'

few people would buy the mbp if the mb had better video. apple is all about the money, so they want graphics lovers to throw down their wallets.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by krillbee

agreed, that glossy screen is yucky. i think the old ibooks are a lot more attractive than the new macbook, on the exterior (part of that has to do with the new funky keyboard too and other things).

anyways, the thing about apple is that they never like to admit that they were wrong. it takes years for them to correct mistakes, because they want to do it subtely. that probably means that we'll be dealing with the glossy screen for quite a long time on the macbooks and maybe even on the macbookpros.


i also completey understand why apple wont put a better videocard in their macbook. if they did, then the macbookpros, probably wouldnt sell, because their only better feature then would be the bigger screen and the 'superdrive'

few people would buy the mbp if the mb had better video. apple is all about the money, so they want graphics lovers to throw down their wallets.

Well with the previous generation, the iBooks didn't have integrated graphics. Did that cause the PowerBooks not to sell? The iBooks had a video card that was not as good as what was in the 15" and 17" PowerBooks, but not bottom of the barrel like the GMA 950 either. Why can't we have that? There's plenty of other options in between the GMA 950 and the X1600.

I don't see why it's so unreasonable to have something that's not massively worse than the previous, $100 cheaper version.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by goMac

Sadly, more than likely I won't be able to create anything cool with it for Macbook not pro users because of the GMA950.

I just bought a Macbook, I had a 15" alu before that and I'm not getting what your saying here (and other posts). Anything you write for the other macs will run on the macbook. Will it play the games mentioned here like wow or doom3, yes it will play but I wouldn't advise it.

My MB is a fast little laptop that is handling everyhting I throw at it (I don't play games and I agree that the GMA950 isn't suited for games).

Mike

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well with the previous generation, the iBooks didn't have integrated graphics. Did that cause the PowerBooks not to sell? The iBooks had a video card that was not as good as what was in the 15" and 17" PowerBooks, but not bottom of the barrel like the GMA 950 either. Why can't we have that? There's plenty of other options in between the GMA 950 and the X1600.

Well, IMO the MacBook is a lot closer to the MacBook Pros than the iBook was vs the 15" and 17" PowerBooks.

The CPU is in the MacBook is as fast as a dual G5 Power Mac, and as fast as a MacBook Pro released just a few months ago. It's frickin' dual-core, in a low end Mac laptop!!!11

DVI support and monitor spanning are standard on all MacBooks.

SuperDrive is an option. No stupid rule preventing a SuperDrive on a 12" iBook.

2 GB RAM support.

Improved keyboard.

iSight

5400 rpm drive

16:10 widescreen, with a rez 1280x800, almost as high as 15" PowerBooks a couple of generations ago.

And as for the GPU, while the GeForce 5200 is not bottom of the barrel, it's pretty lousy too. I think if it's not X300 or better, than it's almost moot.

I don't see why it's so unreasonable to have something that's not massively worse than the previous, $100 cheaper version.

I agree.

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't need to. I know that Apple will unveil their next window server, it'll be snappy, and it'll run great on my Macbook Pro that I'll buy at the end of the year.

Sadly, more than likely I won't be able to create anything cool with it for Macbook not pro users because of the GMA950.

Why don't you just give it a whirl? In the very worst it won't work well until next year when MacBooks get better GPUs.

At best it could work acceptably on GMA 950. You've already made assumptions about the performance of GMA 950 that have been proven to be dead wrong (like Quake 3 performance).

Or else just give it up until later to when people actually care.

Anyways, why MUST all your apps support the MacBook?

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

Excactly. Games mean something to Joe Public. What you're talking about won't for quite some time.

[TETENAL]

macnews.de made an interview with Todd Benjamin Director of Portables at Apple, which answers all the questions about the MacBooks and the graphics card:

Why replace the 12" PowerBook with the 13" MacBook?

The black MacBook has a professional look and replaces the 12" PowerBook.

Isn't 200 € for the black colour a little bit much?

It's 90 € cheaper than the PowerBook it replaces.

Why no 14" model?

The MacBooks have higher resolution than the 14" iBooks had.

What about the glossy panels?

We use a low reflecting high-gloss polarizer which make our displays superior to the competition.

Why onboard chipset?

People who need more graphics power can buy the MacBook Pro.

Did heat play a role?

All systems have adequate performance.

What was the biggest challenge in development?

To include all features in the box.[lists features]

No DVI cable is included in the box.

The interface supports multiple outputs for which we offer cables for purchase.

What is the battery runtime?

6 hours like the iBooks.

Which MacBook do you like best?

I like them all. It's a great product line.

Why were the prices reduced in Germany?

Prices depend on currency exchange rates and VAT.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Why replace the 12" PowerBook with the 13" MacBook?

The black MacBook has a professional look and replaces the 12" PowerBook.

So the MacBook isn't low end, since it is a PB replacement. Good to know.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Isn't 200 € for the black colour a little bit much?

It's 90 € cheaper than the PowerBook it replaces.

True, and good to underline that this isn't a low-end machine.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Why no 14" model?

The MacBooks have higher resolution than the 14" iBooks had.

No arguments there.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

What about the glossy panels?

We use a low reflecting high-gloss polarizer which make our displays superior to the competition.

I have yet to see this in person. Hope you're right.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Why onboard chipset?

People who need more graphics power can buy the MacBook Pro.

Erm. Since the MB is a PB replacement this is a pretty crappy answer. MBPs aren't really as portable you know and some people need powerful portables to replace their 12" PBs.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Did heat play a role?

All systems have adequate performance.

Not in graphics.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

What was the biggest challenge in development?

To include all features in the box.[lists features]

Isn't it always?

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

No DVI cable is included in the box.

The interface supports multiple outputs for which we offer cables for purchase.

How about offering a better GPU for purchase?

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

What is the battery runtime?

6 hours like the iBooks.

Good.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Which MacBook do you like best?

I like them all. It's a great product line.

Not like you can say anything else. Heh.

Originally Posted by Todd Benjamin

Why were the prices reduced in Germany?

Prices depend on currency exchange rates and VAT.

Why are Macs always 10-20% more expenisve in EU but Dells are similarily priced as in the US?

V

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I just bought a Macbook, I had a 15" alu before that and I'm not getting what your saying here (and other posts). Anything you write for the other macs will run on the macbook.

goMac writes eye candy, not applications like you're thinking of. They are visual enhancements that require hardware acceleration. The MB is perfect for most users, he is just more affected by this than most.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"Ironically, the machine that was in the best shape for Vista, at least according to the tool, was a loaner Mac Mini with 1GB of memory. That system was Aero-ready, according to the tool, as long as I devoted more of the system's modest hard drive over to the Windows partition."

http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-607...5165&subj=news

[Kr0nos]

I just had the chance to give one of the new MacBooks (1.83 GHz, 512 MB RAM) a spin, – and I've gotta say, I'm impressed.

Even with that little RAM installed it seemed blazing fast (I tested iMovie and a couple of other apps).

The 'shiny' screen (no 'glare') wasn't bad at all, and it seemed like the colors were more crisp, and the blacks 'richer' than on my PB.

Safari took about 1/10 of a second to launch, and all the other native apps seemed super responsive and snappy.

The keyboard took a little bit getting used to, which I think had more to do with the look than the actual layout and shape of the keys. But once the initial 'weirdness' went away, typing felt smooth…

The design of the case is nice and it also feels a little bit lighter than the old iBooks.

As usual there was no PS or any other Adobe app installed, so I didn't get a chance to put a 'pro level' application to the test, – but I can imagine that with enough RAM installed (2 GB) these MacBooks will do quite well.

All in all these are very nice consumer laptops. If the new MBPs aren't going to offer a wide range of new features and considerably more computing power than the current line-up, I might just buy one of these high-end iBook successors.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

As usual there was no PS or any other Adobe app installed, so I didn't get a chance to put a 'pro level' application to the test, – but I can imagine that with enough RAM installed (2 GB) these MacBooks will do quite well.

Good because Photoshop on any intel system under emulation isn't pretty.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

"Ironically, the machine that was in the best shape for Vista, at least according to the tool, was a loaner Mac Mini with 1GB of memory. That system was Aero-ready, according to the tool, as long as I devoted more of the system's modest hard drive over to the Windows partition."

http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-607...5165&subj=news

Glad to see confirmation of this. Also, I can confirm that the MacBook uses the Intel 945GM chipset, which is the exact same chipset as in the Mac mini. (Yes, the Mac mini uses a mobile chipset.) We now can rest assured that the full Aero will work fine on the MacBook, as expected.

BTW, it's interesting to note that under Windows XP, GMA 950 gets more RAM than it does on OS X. So you could probably connect a great big screen with no problems.

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Good because Photoshop on any intel system under emulation isn't pretty.

Indeed.




I'm just glad I'm not a heavy Photoshop user (esp. on a laptop), and when I do use Photoshop, my images are relatively small.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Glad to see confirmation of this. Also, I can confirm that the MacBook uses the Intel 945GM chipset, which is the exact same chipset as in the Mac mini. (Yes, the Mac mini uses a mobile chipset.) We now can rest assured that the full Aero will work fine on the MacBook, as expected.

I can the compatibility tester on my Mini and it passed with flying colours. 100% supported according to the tester.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

"I wrote a really simple GL fill rate test app just to get a very rough idea of the performance across the different GPUs. It's just a simple rectangle-textured polygon blend benchmark, designed to measure very simplistic compositing performance (as might be used by the WindowServer).

GeForce 7800GT: 3325 megapixels/sec
CoreDuo iMac 20": 1137 megapixels/sec
Core Duo Mini: 802 megapixels/second
iMac G5: 778 megapixels/second
PowerBook G4: 662 megapixels/second
G4 Mac Mini: 288 megapixels/second
You'll see more comparison's of the new mini's graphical capabilities in the next section, but let's just say that in its default configuration of 512MB, this machine does pretty darn good for an entry-level system, and when bumped up to 1GB or 2GB of RAM, you should more than likely see some noticeable improvements."

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macmini.ars/3

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

"I wrote a really simple GL fill rate test app just to get a very rough idea of the performance across the different GPUs. It's just a simple rectangle-textured polygon blend benchmark, designed to measure very simplistic compositing performance (as might be used by the WindowServer).

GeForce 7800GT: 3325 megapixels/sec
CoreDuo iMac 20": 1137 megapixels/sec
Core Duo Mini: 802 megapixels/second
iMac G5: 778 megapixels/second
PowerBook G4: 662 megapixels/second
G4 Mac Mini: 288 megapixels/second
You'll see more comparison's of the new mini's graphical capabilities in the next section, but let's just say that in its default configuration of 512MB, this machine does pretty darn good for an entry-level system, and when bumped up to 1GB or 2GB of RAM, you should more than likely see some noticeable improvements."

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macmini.ars/3

Here is the more relevant GPU benchmark, from the very same review:



Note the hardware T&L benchmark at the bottom left.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Eug Wanker doesn't want to see anything good in the GPU!

Better return that MacBook!

Check out what this SOLO does to the G4:

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Eug Wanker doesn't want to see anything good in the GPU!

Better return that MacBook!

What are you talking about? I'm just being realistic.

The bottom line:

1) Intel GMA 950 sucks royally, in terms of 3D performance, by 2006 standards. That is fact. GMA 950 is why the vast majority of current generation 3D games will be essentially unplayable on the MacBook (which is a shame, because its CPU is blistering fast).
2) Even though 3D performance does suck, it's still fast enough for OS X 10.4 and Windows Vista eye candy, because they don't need all *that* much 3D power.
3) Even though 3D performance does suck, it has no bearing on 2D performance, so most of my apps wont be affected.

Instead of trying to convince yourself with useless artificial tests that GMA is awesome, just try to take a realistic look at the thing.

GMA 950 is NOT about performance. It is about cost. That's not a bad thing, but you're just fooling yourself if you start believing obscure fill rate tests are representative of overall performance.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Instead of trying to convince yourself with useless artificial tests that GMA is awesome, just try to take a realistic look at the thing.

My realistic view of it is that Mac users don't play many games to begin with and for the price the GMA is more than enough and performs really well for what it was intended.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

My realistic view of it is that Mac users don't play many games to begin with and for the price the GMA is more than enough and performs really well for what it was intended.

I guess that's why so many of the big games get ported to Mac OS X then.

Games like World of Warcraft are very popular amongst Mac users. In fact, Apple itself uses gaming benches to market its iMacs. It used to do the same thing for the iBooks. Curiously, it stopped for the MacBooks. I wonder why?

I agree though, for the price GMA 950 is a very good value. That's because it costs something like $4.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Eug Wanker doesn't want to see anything good in the GPU!

Better return that MacBook!

Check out what this SOLO does to the G4 in areas that have nothing to do with the GPU:

fixed

[Socially Awkward Solo]

here's the shocker.... since the Mini went intel with GMA it is selling better. Gasp!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

goMac writes eye candy, not applications like you're thinking of. They are visual enhancements that require hardware acceleration. The MB is perfect for most users, he is just more affected by this than most.

Any application that has a UI is affected by this. In an hardware accelerated environment, if you have a good GPU the interface runs silky smooth. This is helpful in making even an application like Safari run well. Not to mention it helps patch up general UI inconsistencies. It would, for example, allow all applications to minimize correctly in the dock (take a look at almost any OpenGL game, Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, etc...) and all windows would be able to live update in the dock (such as a Safari window with video or Flash on it).

I'm sure this will be something Apple will do in 10.5, considering every other OS on the planet is doing it. I just can't see making any advanced use of it on a Macbook, and I can't see it running very well to begin with on a Macbook. Where a Macbook Pro would have a much more fluid interface, a Macbook won't because Apple was $20 too cheap.

The Macbook would be an amazing machine if they just stuffed an X600 in there, and that's not asking very much at all.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

here's the shocker.... since the Mini went intel with GMA it is selling better. Gasp!

Probably has more to do with it going Intel...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by goMac

The Macbook would be an amazing machine if they just stuffed an X600 in there, and that's not asking very much at all.

Actually, I think an X600 is asking too much. A much more feasible one in terms of cost and physical space might be X300, since the GPU itself costs less, and it can get away with 32 MB RAM and use shared RAM to make up the rest.

Originally Posted by goMac

Probably has more to do with it going Intel...

Yeah, it certainly can't hurt putting a CPU in there that doesn't suck royally.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Actually, I think an X600 is asking too much. A much more feasible one in terms of cost and physical space might be X300, since the GPU itself costs less, and it can get away with 32 MB RAM and use shared RAM to make up the rest.

An X1300, which is basically the next X300, should actually fit pretty well too. Benchmarks put it around the same level as the 9600.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Eug Wanker doesn't want to see anything good in the GPU!

Better return that MacBook!

Check out what this SOLO does to the G4:

OMFG!!!111 Radeon X1600 is teh suck. GMA 950 roolz!

[goMac]

FYI the new Apple commercials have been updated to feature a Macbook instead of the iMac at the end of the commercial.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"When I first got ahold of a MacBook Pro last month, I was shocked by its capability to beat out desktop G5 systems consistently. But I was doubly shocked to see such dramatic results from the newer and lower-end 2.0 GHz MacBook as well. After all, this is not just a notebook competing with a fairly current desktop system, but a consumer-level notebook at that.

Normally you don't even think about running benchmarks of professional-level creative software on a laptop against desktops, and certainly not a laptop targeted toward consumers. But in the vast majority of tests, the MacBook beat out the desktop system and certainly proved itself competition for all but the highest-end (G5 Quad) Mac systems on the market today.

Again, like the MacBook Pro, the 2.0 GHz 13-inch MacBook proves a thoroughly viable machine for users of Final Cut Studio."

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717

[Salty]

Can't be good for Motion though. Can it?

[dazzla]

Now Motion was a different story altogether. While it beat the G5 in three out of four tests, it didn't trounce the G5 in the way the 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro did. In none of the tests did the MacBook beat the MacBook Pro, as was to be expected.

Performed quite well in Motion.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Erm. Since the MB is a PB replacement this is a pretty crappy answer. MBPs aren't really as portable you know and some people need powerful portables to replace their 12" PBs.

Well, they got one.

Certainly at least as powerful in every single respect, and far superior in every single respect - but one.

Originally Posted by voodoo

How about offering a better GPU for purchase?

So you want Apple two offer two completely different main logic board layouts?

Originally Posted by voodoo

Why are Macs always 10-20% more expenisve in EU but Dells are similarily priced as in the US?

Is that the case for Dell? I'd be surprised.

I did try to find this out by spending 20 minutes comparing laptops on their US and German site, but the godawful site did everything it could to hinder me, so I left.

[Eug Wanker]

I got similar scores for my MacBook, although my multi CPU render was about 5% higher.

Also, my MacBook 2.0 is roughly 220% as fast as my iMac G5 2.0, on the CPU render.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Ok from now on I am calling the black macBook this:

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by analogika

I did try to find this out by spending 20 minutes comparing laptops on their US and German site, but the godawful site did everything it could to hinder me, so I left.

Yeah, the Dell site is one awful piece of internet.

[Eug Wanker]

GMA 950 rawks!!!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

GMA 950 rawks!!!

Edit: Image snip

But it's faster than the iBook's Radeon 9550! SWG said so!

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

GMA 950 rawks!!!

Actually it does. I bought it not to play games but to run my software. So far I echo many macbook users, that this laptop is a great tool.

Mike

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Actually it does. I bought it not to play games but to run my software. So far I echo many macbook users, that this laptop is a great tool.

I agree the MacBook is a great tool. However, the reason the MacBook is a great tool is everything else in it, not the GPU.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Actually it does. I bought it not to play games but to run my software. So far I echo many macbook users, that this laptop is a great tool.

Mike

Right, but as you can see, it falls behind in CoreImage too. Far behind.

[goMac]

Just thought I'd note the requirements of Omni's new OmniDazzle today:

http://www.omnigroup.com/application...zzle/hardware/

The GMA950 only gets a "partially supported". Apple's use of a GMA950 is already affecting end users. Meantime the 9600 is fully supported.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I'm just glad I'm not a heavy Photoshop user (esp. on a laptop), and when I do use Photoshop, my images are relatively small.

If I had a Dual G5, then that ^ would mean something to me. Having transitioned from a PB 17" w/ a 1.33ghz G4, the performance in CS2 on the MacBook is just about what I'm used to.

It's a moot issue, and will be even more so by next year when CS3 is released.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

As you can see, having more RAM available for the graphics chipset made a huge difference in performance—nearly double the frame rate, and slightly quicker (thanks to the increased CPU speed) than the mini. So where does this fall in the realm of Quake 3 performance on machines I’ve tested recently? Certainly fast enough to be very playable:

As you can see, the MacBook handles Quake 3 better than does my PowerBook G4, despite that machine’s separate video card. Similar results would be expected for other games based on the Quake 3 engine.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

As you can see, having more RAM available for the graphics chipset made a huge difference in performance—nearly double the frame rate, and slightly quicker (thanks to the increased CPU speed) than the mini. So where does this fall in the realm of Quake 3 performance on machines I’ve tested recently? Certainly fast enough to be very playable:

As you can see, the MacBook handles Quake 3 better than does my PowerBook G4, despite that machine’s separate video card. Similar results would be expected for other games based on the Quake 3 engine.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/firs...php?lsrc=mwrss

And according to the article, if you try to access features that have been standard on GPU's for the last 3 years, the GMA950 absolutely gets killed. Notice the fps on the oh so hardcore Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer.

"As mentioned, anything demanding accelerated 3-D graphics is going to be out, even if the application is Universal. Beyond that, I found that Rosetta wasn’t kind to many older games. Leading off in the unplayable category, Kelly Slater’s Pro Surfer under Rosetta was basically glacial—it might have been getting around two frames a second, even at 640-by-480 (there’s no frame rate display available). I had similar results with MTX Mototrax (Rosetta), though it was a bit faster, but still not playable."

[Krypton]

Originally Posted by goMac

Just thought I'd note the requirements of Omni's new OmniDazzle today:

http://www.omnigroup.com/application...zzle/hardware/

The GMA950 only gets a "partially supported". Apple's use of a GMA950 is already affecting end users. Meantime the 9600 is fully supported.

It will be fully supported in the next beta

[analogika]

Originally Posted by goMac

And according to the article, if you try to access features that have been standard on GPU's for the last 3 years, the GMA950 absolutely gets killed. Notice the fps on the oh so hardcore Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer.

"As mentioned, anything demanding accelerated 3-D graphics is going to be out, even if the application is Universal. Beyond that, I found that Rosetta wasn’t kind to many older games. Leading off in the unplayable category, Kelly Slater’s Pro Surfer under Rosetta was basically glacial—it might have been getting around two frames a second, even at 640-by-480 (there’s no frame rate display available). I had similar results with MTX Mototrax (Rosetta), though it was a bit faster, but still not playable."

Brilliant research there, brillo -

I don't suppose the fact that it's running IN ROSETTA might have a teensy bit to do with that?

You think? Ah, no, you don't.

Nor, apparently, do you read:

The quote you posted specifically refers to performance under Rosetta, not in relation to the graphics card (that's what the "Beyond that" in the second sentence means).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by analogika

Brilliant research there, brillo -

I don't suppose the fact that it's running IN ROSETTA might have a teensy bit to do with that?

You think? Ah, no, you don't.

Nor, apparently, do you read:

The quote you posted specifically refers to performance under Rosetta, not in relation to the graphics card (that's what the "Beyond that" in the second sentence means).

You're right! All the PowerPC OpenGL stuff on the GPU has to be translated to Intel OpenGL stuff on the GPU.

Oh right. It doesn't.

Rosetta, while it has to translate the game's code, still actually renders using the native OpenGL driver. So while their is a speed hit, it's mostly going to be in places like physics and AI. Graphics should not really take a hit at all. This game isn't heavy on either. I'd expect to see maybe a %50 drop AT MOST. 2 fps is much more extreme.

[TETENAL]

goMac, you have no clue about technology. The MacBook sells like hot cakes.

[Chuckit]

Has anyone tried that game on a MBP or iMac? Then we can determine if Rosetta or the GPU is the limiting factor.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by goMac

Just thought I'd note the requirements of Omni's new OmniDazzle today:

http://www.omnigroup.com/application...zzle/hardware/

The GMA950 only gets a "partially supported". Apple's use of a GMA950 is already affecting end users. Meantime the 9600 is fully supported.

You are wrong again.