Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > New MacBooks are finally here! (possible pics)

New MacBooks are finally here! (possible pics) (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Hornet
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Dual-core 1.83 isn't going to be sluggish. Well, for HD trailers a 2.0 might be very slightly better, but does that really matter? It wouldn't be a big deal for me.

HD movies is another story, but the MacBook doesn't have a Blu-ray or HD DVD drive anyway, and even if it did, the system doesn't support HDCP.

I went for the 2.0, but the reason I did was for the SuperDrive.
Eug, the white 1.83ghz MacBook I was trying at an applestore today was choking on 1280x720 h264 content. They had a few clips from apples h264 site - a wildlife one and a NASA one. A clip would play with about 90% cpu usage on both cores - and at the same point each time, it would stall, video would drop to 10-15fps, cpu usage would drop to 40%, and 10 seconds later it'd recover and go back to 30fps. The wildlife video always did it at the same point (bears catching fish), and the nasa one did it too. This was with the power plugged in, not sure what the energy saver settings were on (forgot to check, most likely automatic)

Suffice to say, the macbook 1.83 looks like it may not be a good 720 H264 playback machine

I wonder if the 2.0 will have enough grunt to be a more reliable 720 h264 playback machine
     
Jerome
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Up north
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by masugu
Thx

has anyone posted pics of this operation ??
There was even a video demonstration posted somewhere...

EDIT: found it, here it is! They only show how to take it out (along with the HD) but you get the picture and should be as easy as Voch stated.
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hornet
Eug, the white 1.83ghz MacBook I was trying at an applestore today was choking on 1280x720 h264 content. They had a few clips from apples h264 site - a wildlife one and a NASA one. A clip would play with about 90% cpu usage on both cores - and at the same point each time, it would stall, video would drop to 10-15fps, cpu usage would drop to 40%, and 10 seconds later it'd recover and go back to 30fps. The wildlife video always did it at the same point (bears catching fish), and the nasa one did it too. This was with the power plugged in, not sure what the energy saver settings were on (forgot to check, most likely automatic)

Suffice to say, the macbook 1.83 looks like it may not be a good 720 H264 playback machine

I wonder if the 2.0 will have enough grunt to be a more reliable 720 h264 playback machine
I find that hard to believe, as the Core Duo Mini can play 1020p (or woteva it is) content from Apple's site. There must have been another factor, like the video not loading/streaming properly from the site or something, because theres no reason a MacBook with the same speed processor as the iMac will not play HD content, seeing as the iMac has no trouble in playing it, and seeing as I have been told by various people on this board that at present, the Mac does not utilise the graphics card for HD playback.
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Hornet
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
I find that hard to believe, as the Core Duo Mini can play 1020p (or woteva it is) content from Apple's site. There must have been another factor, like the video not loading/streaming properly from the site or something, because theres no reason a MacBook with the same speed processor as the iMac will not play HD content, seeing as the iMac has no trouble in playing it, and seeing as I have been told by various people on this board that at present, the Mac does not utilise the graphics card for HD playback.
I was likewise very surprised. This was playing content stored locally on the machine - no network issues. Hardly at a data rate that the hdd would suffer at either (<1MB/sec). The machine wasn't running anything else. Same deal full screen vs regular window. Most of the clip played great, it was only at one point when it became obvious it struggled like crazy. It even got to the point in non-full screen mode where the video display just STOPPED, the progression bar kept going, as if it had choked, then finally caught up and resumed playback. Not what I was expecting

The core duo mac mini can PLAY 1080p content - but I very much doubt at a sustained full framerate the entire time. My iMac 2.0 core duo plays 1080p content, sure, but it frequently dips below full framerate on some clips (cornell 1080p particularly). As far as I'm concerned, if it can't keep up at a full framerate, it's not watchable.
     
masugu
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jerome
There was even a video demonstration posted somewhere...

EDIT: found it, here it is! They only show how to take it out (along with the HD) but you get the picture and should be as easy as Voch stated.
Sweet!

Thanks Jerome - much appreciated.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:46 PM
 
Maybe there was a runaway process on that machine, or it was set to maximize the battery. There was a long discussion a few years ago when one of the new PowerBooks came out (can't recall which). People had gone into Apple Stores and run some benchmark tests and found that the new models weren't any better than the old. But it turned out that the Apple Store had apparently set their display models to the lower processor setting, presumably to make them run cooler. Anyway, the point is that I don't think there's any reason to assume that your experience is typical, given what we know about the Intel Mac minis and iMacs.
     
Tsilou B.
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Austria
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
Read my above post, which read:
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
mduell reckons that the RAM does not need to be paired even to get the speed boost (see his sig)
Then mduell doesn't know that asymmetric dual channel mode is a lot slower than symmetric dual channel mode. In fact, it's not much faster than single channel mode. So I still stand by what I said:

Originally Posted by Tsilou B.
Be sure to get two identical (=same size) modules for the MacBook or Mac mini. You'll lose A LOT of speed (> 25%) if you put in different modules. That's because the graphics card uses the same memory and without dual channel mode, there's not enough bandwidth available. This is not a problem with the other Macs, because they use dedicated video memory.
     
Hornet
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 01:21 PM
 
Icruise, Potentially, I await realistic performance reviews soon. Reviews that don't just open up a 720p file, play it for a few seconds, and tout 'wow it plays great!' - reviews that look for framerate drops.
As it stands however, there is no chance I'd buy a macbook for h264 playback.


But plenty of reasons why in my usage I would buy one
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hornet
Eug, the white 1.83ghz MacBook I was trying at an applestore today was choking on 1280x720 h264 content. They had a few clips from apples h264 site - a wildlife one and a NASA one.
That wildlife one (if you mean Cornell) is one of the hardest to decode... for the 1080p version. However, 720p shouldn't be a problem at all. It reportedly plays fine on the Core Duo Mac minis too.
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 01:28 PM
 
Slightly off topic, but I've never quite got the whole Hi Def thing. The MB has a 1280 x 800 screen res, so if I play a 720p trailer/footage on it, am I seeing full quality 720p Hi -Def footage?
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Hornet
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
That wildlife one (if you mean Cornell) is one of the hardest to decode... for the 1080p version. However, 720p shouldn't be a problem at all. It reportedly plays fine on the Core Duo Mac minis too.

I'll await another source that can be.. more trusted^H^H^H^H^H^H your own verdict on that when yours arrives I have lack of faith in people really running through clips and looking for problem areas, but your H264 benchmarking/charting over the months has been a solid effort!
     
discotronic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee4orce
Quite so - maybe it wasn't seated properly (inserting them is quite hard).

In any case, this laptop now totally puts my Dual G5 1.8 to shame ! I just opened every application I have available - PPC and Universal, and it just soldiered on with nary a slowdown. Stunning. The Universal apps especially are impressive - most open in one or two bounces max.
You're killing me

I have a PM G5 single 1.8 that I would really like to compare with the MacBook 2.0. I just wonder how they compare. Anyone seen benchmarks comparing a PowerMac and MacBook or MacBook Pro. I don't recall there being a comparison anywhere.
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by slugslugslug
I thought I remember hearing that the perpendicular 160-GB drives were going to run around $270. In which case buying one of those would be a far better deal assuming you can find somebody to buy your 80, or get an enclosure for it and use it for backup..
Newegg.com has the 160 gig drive for $224. Unfortuantely, I found out that there are no perpendicular drives out yet with the SATA interface. Just the old ATA style. I would have ordered that drive yesterday for $224, but wrong interface.

Rumors are that perpendicular SATA drives should be coming out within the next couple months. Assuming the pricing are similar to the ATA drives, I'll be picking one up ASAP.

The 60 gig drive in my new MacBook only has 9 gigs free after putting my 24 gigs of music on it. 160 gigs would give me room to play with Boot Camp and iMovie and such. I even have a full version of XP SP2 at home.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 05:59 PM
 
I had 40 GB in my iBook, and it was most definitely too small at times, even though I don't keep a lot of stuff on my laptop. However, I knew it would be upgraded in less than a year. It was simply a transitional machine until the Intel MacBooks landed. 60 GB would be enough for me for OS X, but I figured instead of getting just the 60, I'd get the 80 GB for not a lot more, and that'd allow me to add another partition for Windows.

The great thing about the MacBook is that if we do decide to upgrade later, it will be easy to add that new 160 GB 7200 rpm drive without having totally disassemble the machine, so there's less incentive to upgrade the hard drive right at the time we order. This can be lead to lower sales of hard drives for Apple, but OTOH, it does make the MacBook more desirable too, so maybe they'll sell a few more MacBooks because of this.

Mind you, they'd sell a LOT more MacBooks if there was an option for a better GPU. Of course, some of those increased MacBook sales could come at the expense of MacBook Pro sales.
     
Tarcat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 06:49 PM
 
"Mind you, they'd sell a LOT more MacBooks if there was an option for a better GPU. "

I doubt it. Most buyers of a low end laptop (or a computer in general) don't have a clue what integrated graphics are. And a good percentage of those who do don't care that much. They might sell a few more, but sales wouldn't increase that much.
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 08:32 PM
 
I've got to say that the display on this new MacBook is amazing. Comparing it to anything else I have, it puts them to shame. The display is so bright and colorful.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tarcat
"Mind you, they'd sell a LOT more MacBooks if there was an option for a better GPU. "

I doubt it. Most buyers of a low end laptop (or a computer in general) don't have a clue what integrated graphics are. And a good percentage of those who do don't care that much. They might sell a few more, but sales wouldn't increase that much.
I can tell you I know of at least 3 people who would have bought the MacBook had it not been for the lousy GPU.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 09:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
I can tell you I know of at least 3 people who would have bought the MacBook had it not been for the lousy GPU.
Yes, but the question is- Did they buy a more expensive Mac instead? If so, then it's clear that Apple's strategy is working for them.

What I see is Apple giving us a great product, with an unexpectedly fast CPU, but without a dedicated GPU because, otherwise, the MacBook would eat up MBP sales. In a way this is a good thing, because I don't think Apple would have given us such a good MacBook package at that price.

Still, I'm not defending the integrated graphics-- I'd much rather have a low-end GPU, but all things considered, I think the MacBook is a good package, in spite of the absence of a dedicated GPU.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2006, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales
Yes, but the question is- Did they buy a more expensive Mac instead? If so, then it's clear that Apple's strategy is working for them.
Even if they didn't, the fact of the matter is that a lot more people would buy the MacBook instead of the MacBook Pro if it has comparable graphics capabilities. I really think that adding a decent graphics card would blur the lines between the pro and consumer lines too much. They're already very close as it is. I would never have considered buying an iBook in preference to a PowerBook in the past, but I could totally see buying a MacBook instead of a MacBook Pro, even with the integrated graphics.

I do think, though, that they really should have used non-integrated graphics for the black model. Even if it wasn't the greatest chip around, it would help to distinguish it from the rest of the lineup and lessen the feeling that you're paying $150 extra for black.
     
iJeff
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 12:06 AM
 
If you look at the benchmark test below, theMacBook with its integrated GMA950 video chip set does not perform too badly:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook.ars/5
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales
Yes, but the question is- Did they buy a more expensive Mac instead?
Nope. They bought no Mac. (Windows types thinking of getting a Mac.)
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 02:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Icruise
Even if they didn't, the fact of the matter is that a lot more people would buy the MacBook instead of the MacBook Pro if it has comparable graphics capabilities.
Yeah, but then Apple's doing the right thing. They earn more if they sell a MBP than a MB, so they want people to buy MBPs instead of MBs.

I admit, I hate the GMA950 and shared mem. But from a business perspective I think Apple's playing it right.

I really think that adding a decent graphics card would blur the lines between the pro and consumer lines too much. They're already very close as it is.
That's intentional. Apple wants them to be seen as one family of notebooks and not as consumer vs. pro.

From http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05...book/index.php
The release of the MacBook shows a slightly different portable strategy for Apple. The PowerBook and iBook products had very clear and distinct lines that separated the notebooks in features and size. The new MacBook and MacBook Pros share many more features and feel like one product line.

“Nobody should feel like they have to step down when you buy a MacBook,” said Schiller. “You don’t trade-off much in features between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro.”
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Yeah, but then Apple's doing the right thing. They earn more if they sell a MBP than a MB, so they want people to buy MBPs instead of MBs.

I admit, I hate the GMA950 and shared mem. But from a business perspective I think Apple's playing it right.
That was, you know, kind of my point... I was defending Apple's logic for doing it.
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 11:51 AM
 
Here's the ultimate irony: Apple's offering a refurbed 14" iBook, Superdrive, 60 GB HD for $1049.

Anybody interested in buying that compared to a new 1.83 MacBook, 60 GB, Combo, for $1099?

Apple's also offering a refurb 15" MBP, 1.83, Superdrive, 80 GB for $1599. That, at least, is a little bit more interesting if you're considering a black MB.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 12:11 PM
 
Hmmm... I just realized that the 13" MacBook is smaller than the 12" iBook:

13" MacBook: 32.5 x 22.7 x 2.75 cm = 2029 cubic cm
12" iBook: 28.5 x 23.0 x 3.42 cm = 2242 cubic cm

The 12" PowerBook is still the smallest though at 1820 cubic cm.
     
dazzla
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 12:37 PM
 
Damn, that Cornell 1080p video just dies on my 2.1GHz G5 iMac. I don't know how other sites get their total frames dropped value but I'm getting around 9-15 FPS on that video. I'd love to know if the Macbook can play that without dropping frames.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 01:12 PM
 
Just to see how it would do, I tried out the Cornell wildlife clip on my 17" iMac Core Duo (1.83 ghz, 1GB RAM). The 780p clip played at a solid 30fps the whole time. The 1080p clip (played full-size on my Cinema Display) played back at mostly 30fps, but would take some dips in places to 15-25 fps for a second and then return to 30fps. I'm not sure I would have noticed it if I hadn't been watching the fps readout though.

The clip Hornet was talking about is the Wildlife HD clip, and interestingly the first time I tried to play it the clip broke up right around the "bears catching fish" scene and stalled really badly. But then I played the clip a couple of more times and it was smooth 30fps all the way. I don't understand why that is, especially since I was able to play the bigger resolution Cornell clip perfectly. Maybe there's something odd about that particular clip.

With the exception of the graphics card (which I believe is not used in decoding video like this) and possibly the amount of installed RAM my iMac is identical to the MacBook that Hornet used, so I can't see how itcould be struggling to play the same 720p video.
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 04:55 PM
 
OK - I just downloaded both the Apple HD 'Wildlife' clip at 720p and the Cornell clip at 1080p on my MacBook 2GHz (2GB RAM). Both of them played fine - absolutely fine.

OK, the Cornell clip did drop as low as 15fps once or twice when there were zooming shots of tree branches and leaves, but unless I'd been watching the fps display I wouldn't have known - and I'm not sure that these are not encoding issues. 99% of it played at 30fps or better. Bear in mind it was about 150% the size of my screen - I played it at 100%, scaled to fit, and presented full screen, and the fps was identical for each.

The 720 Wildlife reel played totally fine, all the way though. One strange thing about this clip though is that Quicktime seems doesn't know how much of it it has loaded - it immediately showed 100% loaded. I suspect those pauses other have mentioned were because it was actually hitting the end of the downloaded data. Anyway, once it's all available, it plays with absolutely no problems.

So - in summary, the MacBook graphics card is more than capable of handling even the most demanding 1080p HD video. End of story.

Oh, and that Cornell clip is totally stunning. The best advert of HD I've ever seen.
( Last edited by Gee4orce; May 20, 2006 at 05:02 PM. )
     
Yakov
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Jerusalem / Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 05:07 PM
 


MacWorld presents a Macbook battery bay movie on YouTube!

Simple audio explanation and video demostration of popping out the RAM and hard drive. Looks incredibly easy, even for a hardwarephobe like myself. (Still, financially, it makes sense for me to BTO... if, like me, you are getting 1 gig ram and have the education [or corp.?] discount, you don't need to install your own ram.)
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 05:18 PM
 
That video has been around for a few days now...
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
dazzla
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 05:58 PM
 
Although we've all seen this video performed on something else, thought I'd post a link to the same concept on a Macbook:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gE1XQyT_IbA&search=macbook

its the black Macbook with 2GB ram, just demonstrating Virtue desktops, Paralells, Windows XP and Ubuntu.

Whole setup is pretty slick, seems to run very well on the Macbook.

Here's a few more videos worth watching:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2TY3LOi7fLM&search=macbook
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SnO5uJIvZG8&search=macbook
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 07:00 PM
 
Somebody from another forum has posted a MacBook Resource Site. Lots and lots of links.

Here is his mini-review.


Good song.

Also confirms that 512 MB is woefully inadequate.
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; May 20, 2006 at 07:08 PM. )
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 09:56 PM
 
Well, I finally got a chance to get my hands on a MacBook. I only played around with the white 2.0 GHz model, but I must say I was impressed. The model was upgraded to 1 gig of memory, which in my opinion is absolutely necessary, especially if you have any non-Universal apps (Office, Photoshop, etc). The screen was gorgeous and so bright, in fact, that any glare was almost unnoticeable. I was surprised by the keyboard: far less rigid than I had pictured. It's worlds better than the iBook keyboard, and even better than that of the PowerBooks/MacBook Pros. Performance-wise, I was also impressed. Safari opened without any effort, which I had expected.

I'm definitely picking one up as soon as I can afford it... now the only question is what to do with my iBook?

PS: I noticed something funny with Safari's spellcheck: the words iBook, iMac, PowerMac, and PowerBook are all allowed, but MacBook is not.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 10:12 PM
 
At the risk of getting flamed...

Anyone try the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor Beta test under Windows XP with Boot Camp on the MacBook yet?
     
masugu
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bay Area
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 10:51 PM
 
Great memory Video. I will definitely use it...if I don't wait for a Core 2 Duo-based BlacBook.

Today was my 2nd day playing with MacBooks in the San Francisco Apple Store. Loved them to be sure...Keyboard - think I could egt used to it - but the space bar is a bit clackety. Know what I mean??? Black seems to show smears, but as long as you have not been munching on a Carl's JR. $6 burger, you shoudl be OK.

My question now is - can I part with my 1GHz Ti PB? It runs OK....I have all Mac Apps. Really trying to decide if I wait for Merom or not.

Well...if I break down this weekend and order, I think I will get 2 gigs of memory from OWC....or Crucial. The $225 price at OWC seems to good to be true. My momma always said, well...you know the rest.
masugu - "Straight Ahead"
BlacBook Core Duo / Original Intel-based MB - DIY Core i7 PC |
     
nJm
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 11:03 PM
 
I tried some 1080p movie trailers (Superman, The Robinsons etc) on a MacBook 1.83ghz with the stock 512mb ram and they played flawlessly. I'm thinking those nature ones have some encoding problems.
MBP 2.16ghz 15"
iMac G5 1.6Ghz 17"
Powermac 7200/120
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by masugu
Well...if I break down this weekend and order, I think I will get 2 gigs of memory from OWC....or Crucial. The $225 price at OWC seems to good to be true. My momma always said, well...you know the rest.
I ordered 2 GB of Samsung RAM for $219 off [email protected] It has shipped, but I have not received it yet (nor have I received the MacBook yet either).

I will post when I can test it.
     
Voch
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2006, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by masugu
The $225 price at OWC seems to good to be true. My momma always said, well...you know the rest.
My MacBook is running with 2GB of RAM from OWC right now.
     
monkeybrain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 06:29 AM
 
Does anyone know if you can run it with the lid closed? Would be cool if you hooked it up to the TV and could close the lid.
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by monkeybrain
Does anyone know if you can run it with the lid closed? Would be cool if you hooked it up to the TV and could close the lid.
Yes you can, as normal, you have to have power and an external KB/mouse connected for it to work. I wonder if anyone can tell me the idea of having to have the power connected? I have never understood that...
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
dazzla
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 06:38 AM
 
Is the Mini-DVI port on the Macbook the same one as the one on the iMac? If so that saves me £15
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 06:41 AM
 
I believe it is.
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by dazzla
Is the Mini-DVI port on the Macbook the same one as the one on the iMac? If so that saves me £15
100% yes
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 07:53 AM
 
Just tried that Cornell video on my Dual 1.8GHz G5 PowerMac, with 2.5GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro .

It barely managed over 15fps the whole way through !! That's 1/2 the performance of the MacBook !!
     
Star-Fire
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
I ordered 2 GB of Samsung RAM for $219 off [email protected] It has shipped, but I have not received it yet (nor have I received the MacBook yet either).

I will post when I can test it.

I got 2 gigs of Patriot ram for 151 + tax from Fry's electronics and it's working great, it's also listed on outpost.com since they are related.
MacBook Pro 2.5 with 4 GB Ram, 250 GB 5400RPM, iMac 20" Intel Dual Core 2.0 with 2 GB Ram
http://star-fire.deviantart.com/gallery/
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 08:29 AM
 
Just rang the courier comp (TNT), and they said its overnight delivery and should be here tomorrow!!!! (though I bet it wont be....)
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 08:37 AM
 
I tried the cornell video on both my mini and G5 (mini having the same GPU as the MB) and both pulled in 30 FPS so I'm not sure if this is an accurate measurement.

The g5 has the ATI x800XT video card and its performance for this one test was the exact same.
~Mike
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 08:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn
I tried the cornell video on both my mini and G5 (mini having the same GPU as the MB) and both pulled in 30 FPS so I'm not sure if this is an accurate measurement.

The g5 has the ATI x800XT video card and its performance for this one test was the exact same.
IIRC, the slight slowdowns were around 1:15 or something (on the 1080p clip).
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 11:37 AM
 
So, I think it's safe to say that the CPU/GPU combinations, as far as playing back 1080p h.264 HD video are concerned, are something like this, from best to worst:

G5/Radeon x800XT == CoreDuo/Radeon x1600
CoreDuo/Intel Integrated
G5/Radeon 9600

...that's not too shabby. I hope this puts to bed the 'poor' performance of the integrated graphics.
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 21, 2006, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
I had 40 GB in my iBook, and it was most definitely too small at times, even though I don't keep a lot of stuff on my laptop. However, I knew it would be upgraded in less than a year. It was simply a transitional machine until the Intel MacBooks landed. 60 GB would be enough for me for OS X, but I figured instead of getting just the 60, I'd get the 80 GB for not a lot more, and that'd allow me to add another partition for Windows.

The great thing about the MacBook is that if we do decide to upgrade later, it will be easy to add that new 160 GB 7200 rpm drive without having totally disassemble the machine, so there's less incentive to upgrade the hard drive right at the time we order. This can be lead to lower sales of hard drives for Apple, but OTOH, it does make the MacBook more desirable too, so maybe they'll sell a few more MacBooks because of this.

Mind you, they'd sell a LOT more MacBooks if there was an option for a better GPU. Of course, some of those increased MacBook sales could come at the expense of MacBook Pro sales.
I totally agree. The user replaceable HD on the Macbook is quite possibly it's best feature.

Eventually somebody is gonna write an application that lets you allocate more memory to the GPU, which will help the GMA950 a bit.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,