Why is it? On Board GMA for mini and macbooks?
I did a bit of searching on this forum and others.
Here is what I found.
First, you could never play a game on either a mini or macbook (openGL) and then I read that using Xbench for macbooks were as follows:
80% or so, OpenGL Macbook 2nd Gen
120% before newer macbook (penryn)
171% with Leopard
Then with new X300 it went from 171% to 70%.
Here is what I don't get. If you can never play a game and barefeats said you could at one time use motion, then this means while the small majority of users are PRO compared to iPhone and mom dad iMac users, that apple didn't want the pros (again, small percent) to use the OPEN GL, why would they do this?
What are they afraid of? There are quite a bit of laptops for $1000 or so that you can play games on and you would think the mini and macbook would want to be cutting edge. So what if less than 1-2 % use it for motion. Think of al the gamers that would buy these. Do you think it would happen someday and if not, why? I just don't understand.
If you want a decent laptop for games it has to be windows or a macbook pro and if you use audio/video programs and get an iMac I have read that the iMAC no longer uses Texas Instrument firewire which is causing problems. Its almost as if Apple wants you no matter what, yo buy a Mac Pro or Mac Book pro if you do anything PRO, or pro sumer and I think this is a bit unfair as many new projects are now done by the "at home" enthusiast.
Can someone please explain as Apples business model makes no sense and they come across as fearful that the small majority of PRO users which make up a fraction of the market, that they can't have access to anything reasonably priced.
Thanks
Here is what I found.
First, you could never play a game on either a mini or macbook (openGL) and then I read that using Xbench for macbooks were as follows:
80% or so, OpenGL Macbook 2nd Gen
120% before newer macbook (penryn)
171% with Leopard
Then with new X300 it went from 171% to 70%.
Here is what I don't get. If you can never play a game and barefeats said you could at one time use motion, then this means while the small majority of users are PRO compared to iPhone and mom dad iMac users, that apple didn't want the pros (again, small percent) to use the OPEN GL, why would they do this?
What are they afraid of? There are quite a bit of laptops for $1000 or so that you can play games on and you would think the mini and macbook would want to be cutting edge. So what if less than 1-2 % use it for motion. Think of al the gamers that would buy these. Do you think it would happen someday and if not, why? I just don't understand.
If you want a decent laptop for games it has to be windows or a macbook pro and if you use audio/video programs and get an iMac I have read that the iMAC no longer uses Texas Instrument firewire which is causing problems. Its almost as if Apple wants you no matter what, yo buy a Mac Pro or Mac Book pro if you do anything PRO, or pro sumer and I think this is a bit unfair as many new projects are now done by the "at home" enthusiast.
Can someone please explain as Apples business model makes no sense and they come across as fearful that the small majority of PRO users which make up a fraction of the market, that they can't have access to anything reasonably priced.
Thanks
Comments
I did a bit of searching on this forum and others.
Here is what I found.
First, you could never play a game on either a mini or macbook (openGL) and then I read that using Xbench for macbooks were as follows:
80% or so, OpenGL Macbook 2nd Gen
120% before newer macbook (penryn)
171% with Leopard
Then with new X300 it went from 171% to 70%.
Here is what I don't get. If you can never play a game and barefeats said you could at one time use motion, then this means while the small majority of users are PRO compared to iPhone and mom dad iMac users, that apple didn't want the pros (again, small percent) to use the OPEN GL, why would they do this?
What are they afraid of? There are quite a bit of laptops for $1000 or so that you can play games on and you would think the mini and macbook would want to be cutting edge. So what if less than 1-2 % use it for motion. Think of al the gamers that would buy these. Do you think it would happen someday and if not, why? I just don't understand.
If you want a decent laptop for games it has to be windows or a macbook pro and if you use audio/video programs and get an iMac I have read that the iMAC no longer uses Texas Instrument firewire which is causing problems. Its almost as if Apple wants you no matter what, yo buy a Mac Pro or Mac Book pro if you do anything PRO, or pro sumer and I think this is a bit unfair as many new projects are now done by the "at home" enthusiast.
Can someone please explain as Apples business model makes no sense and they come across as fearful that the small majority of PRO users which make up a fraction of the market, that they can't have access to anything reasonably priced.
Thanks
IGPs are cheaper than dedicated GPUs. Cheaper parts mean more profit. I really don't think there's anything else in Apple's equation than that.
Second, Apple has a consumer line and a pro line. There has to be something other than the 2 extra inches of screen to differentiate the two lines. So it goes like this:
1. People shopping for the inexpensive laptop try out the MacBook, see that it is very snappy and don't detect any "slowness" at all. If they are happy with a 13 inch screen, they buy it.
2. People who are not happy with the 13-inch screen but are hesitant to pay $900 more for the MacBook Pro can be told about the "more powerful graphics chip", which probably means nothing to them but helps to explain why the machine costs $900 more.
So basically, for the vast majority of Apple's market, nobody gives a shit about the GPU. The people who actually care just get the MacBook Pro.
I doubt anyone really is going to play games that require heavy-duty GPUs on a 13-inch laptop anyway. If they are, then the games most likely aren't available on the Mac anyway.
So Apple would be totally wasting any money they put into discrete graphics on the low-end machines - they would lose money on the cost of materials, and probably lose money on not being able to upsell the customers to the MacBook Pro, too.
Customers look at the screen size, the beauty, and the price, not the chips.
Also apple needs a mid-tower in the $700-$1900 price range.
why do they have to put a gma in the $1500 mac book black $1500 for POS GMA is too much.
Also apple needs a mid-tower in the $700-$1900 price range.
Who needs one? Jobs says Apple doesn't need one! And how does he say this: He doesn't produce one even after several years of people on this forum and others calling (begging) for one. And I think he has heard you, but says "No! Apple doesn't need a mid-tower in the $700-$1900 price range!".
You and others (including me) want one, but Apple (according to Jobs) doesn't need one.
Perhaps you were using the word "need" in something different than an economic sense (cents
why do they have to put a gma in the $1500 mac book black $1500 for POS GMA is too much.
To differentiate it from the MacBook Pro.
Also apple needs a mid-tower in the $700-$1900 price range.
Nobody would buy it. They would buy the iMac which has a smaller footprint and comes with a display.
They had power mac g's4 in the $1200 and up range.
I have a PowerMac G4 (DA) 466. In 2001 dollars the base model started at $1699. Just picking a number out of the air, of say 5 percent for the inflation rate, that's about $2300 in today's money. That dollar figure has a familiar ring to it. Oh yea, it's this:
Mac Pro, One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core) $2299.00
# One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
# 2GB (2 x 1GB)
# 320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB (Two dual-link DVI)
# One 16x SuperDrive
http://www.apple-history.com/
The PowerMac G4 (DA) shipped in four configurations: The 466 MHz configuration included 128 MB of RAM and 30 GB hard drive, for $1699. (included a CD-RW drive).
To differentiate it from the MacBook Pro.
Nobody would buy it. They would buy the iMac which has a smaller footprint and comes with a display.
not people who want a better display or have a good display right now.
not people who want a better display or have a good display right now.
Tonto say, That What Mac Pro For, Kemosabe.
Tonto say, That What Mac Pro For, Kemosabe.
You just made hot black coffee shoot out of my nose, my faithful indian companion...
IGPs are cheaper than dedicated GPUs. Cheaper parts mean more profit.
GPUs cost next to nothing these days, we're talking maybe £50 and Apple could add it in as BTO.
Macintosh has never been the platform for gaming ..period.
Well they've never had the good GPUs so that's kind of obvious. Using them would surely help address that.
But to reiterate what's been said many times over the years, it's not all about games so let's not turn this into a gaming thing as it always does.
The OP mentioned prosumers and people who do graphics work at home. The fact of the matter is that a Macbook Pro's GPU is something like 30 times faster than a Mini. Apple could at least close that gap a little bit.
Nobody would buy it.
Forgetting the Psystar website hit count?
Mac Pro, One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core) $2299.00
Where is the dual core Mac with a good GPU that doesn't have a display stuck to it? This is missing no matter which way you look at it. People who need a good graphics card for whatever reason - motion graphics, basic 3D modelling - but don't want the limitations of an iMac (it has a lot of limitations) they have to get a quad Xeon workstation.
Its almost as if Apple wants you no matter what, yo buy a Mac Pro or Mac Book pro if you do anything PRO, or pro sumer and I think this is a bit unfair as many new projects are now done by the "at home" enthusiast.
That's exactly what it is. Unfair.
Think of al the gamers that would buy these. Do you think it would happen someday and if not, why? I just don't understand.
I don't agree there though. The number of PC gamers are dropping so low. I wouldn't even play games on a Mac with a good GPU. I'd use it for motion graphics and 3D stuff - you can't really do creative work on a glossy display. It doesn't even have to be an amazing chipset, just one that is near the X1600 in the original iMac. Hopefully the new integrated chipset will fix this issue as it should be 5-6x faster than the GMA. The X1600 was still 10 times faster but it's a big jump.
But still besides the GPU, the hard drive is still an issue too. You could still use 3.5" drives in the original G4 towers and your own tray-loading optical drive. Modern consumer Macs are almost a step backwards. When they get large capacity SSD in a Mini with a decent graphics chip, it probably won't matter at all as the SSD is about the same speed as a 3.5" drive in RAID. This won't happen for another 2 years though so we just have to put up with whatever Apple decides to dump on us until technology reaches a point where Apple simply can't deliberately limit us any more.
...It doesn't even have to be an amazing chipset, just one that is near the X1600 in the original iMac...
Original iMac?... With the G3 CPU, and the ATI chip with 4MB of video RAM? I'm not sure the X1600 was even a wet dream yet when the original iMac stunned the world.
Forgetting the Psystar website hit count?
If those hit counts translated to lots of sales, Apple might be interested. Otherwise, not so much.
Original iMac?... With the G3 CPU, and the ATI chip with 4MB of video RAM? I'm not sure the X1600 was even a wet dream yet when the original iMac stunned the world.
I will risk to say that Marvin has showed in the past he knows better than that, and I think he means the original Intel Core Duo iMac (early 2006).
Original iMac?... With the G3 CPU, and the ATI chip with 4MB of video RAM? I'm not sure the X1600 was even a wet dream yet when the original iMac stunned the world.
No.... no.... make it go away.....
I will risk to say that Marvin has showed in the past he knows better than that, and I think he means the original Intel Core Duo iMac (early 2006).
I kinda figured that ... i was hoping the "stunned the world" comment might have given a hint of sarcasm or humor. Guess i gotta remember to include Mr. winking smiley when I do that!
GPUs cost next to nothing these days, we're talking maybe £50 and Apple could add it in as BTO.
Yeeeeeeeah... tell you what, you go crack open a MacBook, buy one of those cards, and slap it right in there. What? What's that? There's no slot for it? The motherboard would *have to be redesigned*?!? Maybe that's why it's not a BTO option, eh?
Forgetting the Psystar website hit count?
Just because everyone slows down to see the car wreck on the side of the road doesn't mean they want to be in one.
Just because everyone slows down to see the car wreck on the side of the road doesn't mean they want to be in one.