Based on this list, I'm guessing if the app even loads some graphics library like say, Core Animation or Core Graphics, the GPU automatically switches on.
Thanks for the list and I hope they fix GPU switching. Looking to buy a 15" MBP soon.
I can say that Office 2008 does not trigger the Nvidia. I disabled the automatic update feature so I can not test it without installing it again. I might just to see, but so far Office runs on the Intel.
I have to agree with this. I had to purchase a new laptop this month, and a similarly equipped Dell Studio 16 with i7 and a better screen was $1000 less than the macbook....I was really disappointed. I couldn't justify that price difference.
I have to disagree. I have owned my own business for years, and five years ago ditched all the Windows PC's in the office and moved everything over to Macs. Yes, the Macs cost more to purchase up front, BUT THEY WORK!
When I was running Windoze, every week I had systems down, bogged down with viruses, this and that doesn't work. Have to hire a tech to come in and trouble shoot them and get them running again. Not big enough to have in-house IT staff. I had to pay an employee to do nothing while their system was down. Pissed off customers... This costs a TON of money.
In five years, I have had one issue with a Mac. The power supply went out on an iMac. I drove it to the store and they fixed it that day.
So, I'm sure Dells are cheaper. But, I don't care how cheap it is, a computer that doesn't work is worth NOTHING! In fact, it is a liability. I'm sticking with my Macs. (plus, my employees love them, take better care of them, and show them off to everyone who walks into our office)
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.
Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.
But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.
Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.
But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps
Thanks for a great reply: It is the same old thing with these "I can get a PC with more high-end devices and with Win7 for cheaper than a Mac". Well, they better have all that horsepower to run anything Windows. Simple test, see if their 5 or 6 year old PC can run Win 7, and I will match that against my 5 year old iBook G4 with Leopard.
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.
Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.
But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps
When I look at the bars there on Bare Feats' test I see that orange bar showing that the MBP with 256 MB VRAM is quite a lot worse than the 512 MB ones when it comes the lowest FPS.
Also I'm quite sure it depends on what you do with the computer. If you just have a browser and a few windows open the difference in VRAM won't be noticed, but when the number of windows on the screen start to grow I'm pretty sure it matters.
Here's a dialog from Photoshop running on a three years old MacBook Pro that also has 256 MB VRAM:
Also, in the upcoming game Starcraft II there are four major graphic settings that involves video RAM:
Low: 128 MB
Medium: 256 MB
High: 512 MB
Ultra: 1 GB
I guess the number of people playing games on their MBP are relatively small, but still.
So, while it won't be a big issue in all cases it *can* be an issue in some and it's at least not a disadvantage with more VRAM, right?.
Since many of the cheap laptops from other manufacturers (some cost 1/3 the price of the entry level MBP 15") offer a dedicated graphics card with 1 GB VRAM I don't see Apple's reasoning here.
Simple test, see if their 5 or 6 year old PC can run Win 7, and I will match that against my 5 year old iBook G4 with Leopard.
Have you tried Windows 7?
I'm pretty sure the match would be to the Windows machines advantage in many cases, especially when it comes to browsing the web and scrolling web pages.
There's definitely some things that Windows do better, graphic card acceleration (and the drivers for the graphics cards) seems to be one thing.
When I look at the bars there on Bare Feats' test I see that orange bar showing that the MBP with 256 MB VRAM is quite a lot worse than the 512 MB ones when it comes the lowest FPS.
Also I'm quite sure it depends on what you do with the computer. If you just have a browser and a few windows open the difference in VRAM won't be noticed, but when the number of windows on the screen start to grow I'm pretty sure it matters.
Here's a dialog from Photoshop running on a three years old MacBook Pro that also has 256 MB VRAM:
Also, in the upcoming game Starcraft II there are four major graphic settings that involves video RAM:
Low: 128 MB
Medium: 256 MB
High: 512 MB
Ultra: 1 GB
I guess the number of people playing games on their MBP are relatively small, but still.
So, while it won't be a big issue in all cases it *can* be an issue in some and it's at least not a disadvantage with more VRAM, right?.
Since many of the cheap laptops from other manufacturers (some cost 1/3 the price of the entry level MBP 15") offer a dedicated graphics card with 1 GB VRAM I don't see Apple's reasoning here.
Look at it again, it says this: Dark grey bar in graph is 1920x1200 and light grey bar is 2560x1600. (Results are in Frames Per Second; ORANGE bar means SLOWEST.)
That orange showing its the slowest (256 Vram) is when it is on a 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the dark gray ones are the regular 1920X1200, and THOSE show not only is 256 vram equal to 512vram, it shows sometimes the 256vram has MORE frames per second.
Obviously personally i am going to get 512 jsut cause more is better and thats what i plan on getting...BUT when the poster said what he said about apple needing to step it up and that 256/512 is small time and old , i had to show the facts showing that he doesnt know what hes talking about.
Look at it again, it says this: Dark grey bar in graph is 1920x1200 and light grey bar is 2560x1600. (Results are in Frames Per Second; ORANGE bar means SLOWEST.)
That orange showing its the slowest (256 Vram) is when it is on a 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the dark gray ones are the regular 1920X1200, and THOSE show not only is 256 vram equal to 512vram, it shows sometimes the 256vram has MORE frames per second.
Obviously personally i am going to get 512 jsut cause more is better and thats what i plan on getting...BUT when the poster said what he said about apple needing to step it up and that 256/512 is small time and old , i had to show the facts showing that he doesnt know what hes talking about.
Yes, exactly. On the 256 MB one the lowest FPS get a lot worse (when running in 2560 x 1600) than on the other two with with 512 MB. Also in on X-Plane test there's 10 FPS difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB. On the ET:QW test the 256 MB is 0,2 FPS better and on the Halo test it's 0,9. That tests that 256 MB winds feels more like a coincidence.
What is it you mean I don't understand correctly in the Bare Feats test?
If I don't know what I'm talking about and if VRAM isn't that important, how do you say about the other two topics I brought up: Starcraft II and Photoshop?
Apple do need to step i up!
Running displays with 2560 x 1600 pixels is getting more common every day and seeing the results one get with 256 MB means it doesn't belong in a laptop released 2010 that costs as much as the MBP. That's what I think at least.
Yes, exactly. On the 256 MB one the lowest FPS get a lot worse (when running in 2560 x 1600) than on the other two with with 512 MB. Also in on X-Plane test there's 10 FPS difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB. On the ET:QW test the 256 MB is 0,2 FPS better and on the Halo test it's 0,9. That tests that 256 MB winds feels more like a coincidence.
What is it you mean I don't understand correctly in the Bare Feats test?
If I don't know what I'm talking about and if VRAM isn't that important, how do you say about the other two topics I brought up: Starcraft II and Photoshop?
Apple do need to step i up!
Running displays with 2560 x 1600 pixels is getting more common every day and seeing the results one get with 256 MB means it doesn't belong in a laptop released 2010 that costs as much as the MBP. That's what I think at least.
Apple has a lot of other stuff to catch up on before Vram, like admitting their form factor is wrong for the heat their laptops create. Maybe more and more people are using 30" displays at 2560 x 1600, but that still is probably 5-10% of the people that own a macbook pro. When has Apple EVER done anything for the little guy? They make their laptops specifically in a bland, nothing to special, medium performance way. The most extreme thing Apple has ever done with their macbook pro's is put the i7 in some, and even then they cant handle it because how hot they are "reportedly" getting.
So basically if you expect apple to offer anything but the low end range to the medium end range (example, even their SSD's arent the fastest and best that they could have been), then your looking at the wrong company.
Im not trying to argue that apple should stay this way, i cant stand apple, i cant stand that you pay 2500 for average hardware specs, but thats Apple for you, and yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.
Apple has a lot of other stuff to catch up on before Vram, like admitting their form factor is wrong for the heat their laptops create. Maybe more and more people are using 30" displays at 2560 x 1600, but that still is probably 5-10% of the people that own a macbook pro. When has Apple EVER done anything for the little guy? They make their laptops specifically in a bland, nothing to special, medium performance way. The most extreme thing Apple has ever done with their macbook pro's is put the i7 in some, and even then they cant handle it because how hot they are "reportedly" getting.
So basically if you expect apple to offer anything but the low end range to the medium end range (example, even their SSD's arent the fastest and best that they could have been), then your looking at the wrong company.
Im not trying to argue that apple should stay this way, i cant stand apple, i cant stand that you pay 2500 for average hardware specs, but thats Apple for you, and yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.
Of course there other things Apple can improve.
I don't have much experience with the i7 MacBook Pro's when it comes to heat, but we've bought a few at work so I'll probably have an opinion soon.
”yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.”
Of course not and that's not something I'd expect. But letting other people know about this issue isn't a bad thing. I have also contacted Apple and been speaking to the ”Executive Relations EMEA” at Apple about this and the issues with with the yellow tone and gray line on the display of the 27" iMac. For what it's worth she said she'd pass on my opinions to engineering.
I don't have much experience with the i7 MacBook Pro's when it comes to heat, but we've bought a few at work so I'll probably have an opinion soon.
?yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.?
Of course not and that's not something I'd expect. But letting other people know about this issue isn't a bad thing. I have also contacted Apple and been speaking to the ?Executive Relations EMEA? at Apple about this and the issues with with the yellow tone and gray line on the display of the 27" iMac. For what it's worth she said she'd pass on my opinions to engineering.
Well thats good. If someone can whisper in their ear to change things up, im sure we all would be happy with the result.
I would love it if once you did get some experience with the i7 Macbook Pro's you could tell me your opinions on their temps/heat.
I hope to buy one, but the thing currently holding me back is the reports (by PC authority) and lack of anyone on here giving their experience with their new MBP i7's, is the heat issue. I hear the old MBP's were ruff to have on your lap, and that article says the new ones are even worse. Im not trusting the article but its raised a doubt...so someone that has experience with them, getting info from them would be great.
I am a manager mainly on China legal consultation service and you know I mainly help international friends protect their business and rights in China. It is very very lucky that one customer in US tell us the place! Thank you so much,! I like it! I will introduce to my other international customers too!
HP IO Proxy and Apple's own qmasterd seem to trigger the dedicated GPU on my machine as well. how stupid is that!
What do you guys think are the chances that apple will release updates for their graphics changing software to improve it? Is Apple the type of company to try to fix things or they will leave it how it is? I would think they would try to update the software as much as possible considering it kills the battery usage (4-5 instead of 6-8 hours) and how long a charge lasts is like what apple holds dear.
What do you guys think are the chances that apple will release updates for their graphics changing software to improve it?
100%
Quote:
Is Apple the type of company to try to fix things or they will leave it how it is?
They will leave it how it is until they have a fix for it. We'll likely never hear anything from Apple about it until there is an update for it. it might come in 10.6.4 thus requiring users to notice the difference or being a bullet point in 10.64. bug fix and optimization list. Or it could be a separate update, like the did with the zero day launch of these new MBPs.
They will leave it how it is until they have a fix for it. We'll likely never hear anything from Apple about it until there is an update for it. it might come in 10.6.4 thus requiring users to notice the difference or being a bullet point in 10.64. bug fix and optimization list. Or it could be a separate update, like the did with the zero day launch of these new MBPs.
Im VERY happy to hear that. 4-5 hours of battery life is amazing to me, cause all laptops iv ever own/used have been typical windows dell/hp/toshiba laptops that have a 2 hours battery.
So 4-5 is epic, BUT...when your told "7-8 hours" by Apple and this is the MBP generation i plan on buying and keeping for years and years...getting the generation where they have the worst battery charge isnt ideal.
Comments
Comments on your apps:
(Some of these make sense, others are a big WTF)
Based on this list, I'm guessing if the app even loads some graphics library like say, Core Animation or Core Graphics, the GPU automatically switches on.
Thanks for the list and I hope they fix GPU switching. Looking to buy a 15" MBP soon.
I can say that Office 2008 does not trigger the Nvidia. I disabled the automatic update feature so I can not test it without installing it again. I might just to see, but so far Office runs on the Intel.
Hey mate. Try this. A guy wrote a small app that lets you monitor which graphics card is in play.
http://codykrieger.com/gfxCardStatus/
That's _exactly_ what I've been looking for. Thanks!
But the one "Con" is that it runs Windows, not OSX...
And half the battery life, twice the heat.....
I have to agree with this. I had to purchase a new laptop this month, and a similarly equipped Dell Studio 16 with i7 and a better screen was $1000 less than the macbook....I was really disappointed. I couldn't justify that price difference.
I have to disagree. I have owned my own business for years, and five years ago ditched all the Windows PC's in the office and moved everything over to Macs. Yes, the Macs cost more to purchase up front, BUT THEY WORK!
When I was running Windoze, every week I had systems down, bogged down with viruses, this and that doesn't work. Have to hire a tech to come in and trouble shoot them and get them running again. Not big enough to have in-house IT staff. I had to pay an employee to do nothing while their system was down. Pissed off customers... This costs a TON of money.
In five years, I have had one issue with a Mac. The power supply went out on an iMac. I drove it to the store and they fixed it that day.
So, I'm sure Dells are cheaper. But, I don't care how cheap it is, a computer that doesn't work is worth NOTHING! In fact, it is a liability. I'm sticking with my Macs. (plus, my employees love them, take better care of them, and show them off to everyone who walks into our office)
How is no blu-ray a *legitimate* downside?
Normal people watch movies on their Macs.
And half the battery life, twice the heat.....
There's that too.
It shouldn't even be present on any of the 15" models.
512 MB VRAM for the entry models and 1 GB for the more expensive ones.
Especially now when Starcraft II is getting closer...
Any ideas on why they (Apple) are so skimpy when it comes to this?
256 MB VRAM is a joke this day and age!
It shouldn't even be present on any of the 15" models.
512 MB VRAM for the entry models and 1 GB for the more expensive ones.
Especially now when Starcraft II is getting closer...
Any ideas on why they (Apple) are so skimpy when it comes to this?
Not trying to argue with you or anything, but i read this article http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp22.html
and its overall point was:
WHAT DID WE LEARN?
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.
Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.
But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps
Not trying to argue with you or anything, but i read this article http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp22.html
and its overall point was:
WHAT DID WE LEARN?
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.
Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.
But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps
Thanks for a great reply: It is the same old thing with these "I can get a PC with more high-end devices and with Win7 for cheaper than a Mac". Well, they better have all that horsepower to run anything Windows. Simple test, see if their 5 or 6 year old PC can run Win 7, and I will match that against my 5 year old iBook G4 with Leopard.
Not trying to argue with you or anything, but i read this article http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp22.html
and its overall point was:
WHAT DID WE LEARN?
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.
Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.
But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps
When I look at the bars there on Bare Feats' test I see that orange bar showing that the MBP with 256 MB VRAM is quite a lot worse than the 512 MB ones when it comes the lowest FPS.
Also I'm quite sure it depends on what you do with the computer. If you just have a browser and a few windows open the difference in VRAM won't be noticed, but when the number of windows on the screen start to grow I'm pretty sure it matters.
Here's a dialog from Photoshop running on a three years old MacBook Pro that also has 256 MB VRAM:
Also, in the upcoming game Starcraft II there are four major graphic settings that involves video RAM:
Low: 128 MB
Medium: 256 MB
High: 512 MB
Ultra: 1 GB
I guess the number of people playing games on their MBP are relatively small, but still.
So, while it won't be a big issue in all cases it *can* be an issue in some and it's at least not a disadvantage with more VRAM, right?.
Since many of the cheap laptops from other manufacturers (some cost 1/3 the price of the entry level MBP 15") offer a dedicated graphics card with 1 GB VRAM I don't see Apple's reasoning here.
Simple test, see if their 5 or 6 year old PC can run Win 7, and I will match that against my 5 year old iBook G4 with Leopard.
Have you tried Windows 7?
I'm pretty sure the match would be to the Windows machines advantage in many cases, especially when it comes to browsing the web and scrolling web pages.
There's definitely some things that Windows do better, graphic card acceleration (and the drivers for the graphics cards) seems to be one thing.
When I look at the bars there on Bare Feats' test I see that orange bar showing that the MBP with 256 MB VRAM is quite a lot worse than the 512 MB ones when it comes the lowest FPS.
Also I'm quite sure it depends on what you do with the computer. If you just have a browser and a few windows open the difference in VRAM won't be noticed, but when the number of windows on the screen start to grow I'm pretty sure it matters.
Here's a dialog from Photoshop running on a three years old MacBook Pro that also has 256 MB VRAM:
Also, in the upcoming game Starcraft II there are four major graphic settings that involves video RAM:
Low: 128 MB
Medium: 256 MB
High: 512 MB
Ultra: 1 GB
I guess the number of people playing games on their MBP are relatively small, but still.
So, while it won't be a big issue in all cases it *can* be an issue in some and it's at least not a disadvantage with more VRAM, right?.
Since many of the cheap laptops from other manufacturers (some cost 1/3 the price of the entry level MBP 15") offer a dedicated graphics card with 1 GB VRAM I don't see Apple's reasoning here.
Look at it again, it says this: Dark grey bar in graph is 1920x1200 and light grey bar is 2560x1600. (Results are in Frames Per Second; ORANGE bar means SLOWEST.)
That orange showing its the slowest (256 Vram) is when it is on a 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the dark gray ones are the regular 1920X1200, and THOSE show not only is 256 vram equal to 512vram, it shows sometimes the 256vram has MORE frames per second.
Obviously personally i am going to get 512 jsut cause more is better and thats what i plan on getting...BUT when the poster said what he said about apple needing to step it up and that 256/512 is small time and old , i had to show the facts showing that he doesnt know what hes talking about.
Look at it again, it says this: Dark grey bar in graph is 1920x1200 and light grey bar is 2560x1600. (Results are in Frames Per Second; ORANGE bar means SLOWEST.)
That orange showing its the slowest (256 Vram) is when it is on a 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the dark gray ones are the regular 1920X1200, and THOSE show not only is 256 vram equal to 512vram, it shows sometimes the 256vram has MORE frames per second.
Obviously personally i am going to get 512 jsut cause more is better and thats what i plan on getting...BUT when the poster said what he said about apple needing to step it up and that 256/512 is small time and old , i had to show the facts showing that he doesnt know what hes talking about.
Yes, exactly. On the 256 MB one the lowest FPS get a lot worse (when running in 2560 x 1600) than on the other two with with 512 MB. Also in on X-Plane test there's 10 FPS difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB. On the ET:QW test the 256 MB is 0,2 FPS better and on the Halo test it's 0,9. That tests that 256 MB winds feels more like a coincidence.
What is it you mean I don't understand correctly in the Bare Feats test?
If I don't know what I'm talking about and if VRAM isn't that important, how do you say about the other two topics I brought up: Starcraft II and Photoshop?
Apple do need to step i up!
Running displays with 2560 x 1600 pixels is getting more common every day and seeing the results one get with 256 MB means it doesn't belong in a laptop released 2010 that costs as much as the MBP. That's what I think at least.
Yes, exactly. On the 256 MB one the lowest FPS get a lot worse (when running in 2560 x 1600) than on the other two with with 512 MB. Also in on X-Plane test there's 10 FPS difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB. On the ET:QW test the 256 MB is 0,2 FPS better and on the Halo test it's 0,9. That tests that 256 MB winds feels more like a coincidence.
What is it you mean I don't understand correctly in the Bare Feats test?
If I don't know what I'm talking about and if VRAM isn't that important, how do you say about the other two topics I brought up: Starcraft II and Photoshop?
Apple do need to step i up!
Running displays with 2560 x 1600 pixels is getting more common every day and seeing the results one get with 256 MB means it doesn't belong in a laptop released 2010 that costs as much as the MBP. That's what I think at least.
Apple has a lot of other stuff to catch up on before Vram, like admitting their form factor is wrong for the heat their laptops create. Maybe more and more people are using 30" displays at 2560 x 1600, but that still is probably 5-10% of the people that own a macbook pro. When has Apple EVER done anything for the little guy? They make their laptops specifically in a bland, nothing to special, medium performance way. The most extreme thing Apple has ever done with their macbook pro's is put the i7 in some, and even then they cant handle it because how hot they are "reportedly" getting.
So basically if you expect apple to offer anything but the low end range to the medium end range (example, even their SSD's arent the fastest and best that they could have been), then your looking at the wrong company.
Im not trying to argue that apple should stay this way, i cant stand apple, i cant stand that you pay 2500 for average hardware specs, but thats Apple for you, and yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.
Apple has a lot of other stuff to catch up on before Vram, like admitting their form factor is wrong for the heat their laptops create. Maybe more and more people are using 30" displays at 2560 x 1600, but that still is probably 5-10% of the people that own a macbook pro. When has Apple EVER done anything for the little guy? They make their laptops specifically in a bland, nothing to special, medium performance way. The most extreme thing Apple has ever done with their macbook pro's is put the i7 in some, and even then they cant handle it because how hot they are "reportedly" getting.
So basically if you expect apple to offer anything but the low end range to the medium end range (example, even their SSD's arent the fastest and best that they could have been), then your looking at the wrong company.
Im not trying to argue that apple should stay this way, i cant stand apple, i cant stand that you pay 2500 for average hardware specs, but thats Apple for you, and yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.
Of course there other things Apple can improve.
I don't have much experience with the i7 MacBook Pro's when it comes to heat, but we've bought a few at work so I'll probably have an opinion soon.
”yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.”
Of course not and that's not something I'd expect. But letting other people know about this issue isn't a bad thing. I have also contacted Apple and been speaking to the ”Executive Relations EMEA” at Apple about this and the issues with with the yellow tone and gray line on the display of the 27" iMac. For what it's worth she said she'd pass on my opinions to engineering.
Of course there other things Apple can improve.
I don't have much experience with the i7 MacBook Pro's when it comes to heat, but we've bought a few at work so I'll probably have an opinion soon.
?yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.?
Of course not and that's not something I'd expect. But letting other people know about this issue isn't a bad thing. I have also contacted Apple and been speaking to the ?Executive Relations EMEA? at Apple about this and the issues with with the yellow tone and gray line on the display of the 27" iMac. For what it's worth she said she'd pass on my opinions to engineering.
Well thats good. If someone can whisper in their ear to change things up, im sure we all would be happy with the result.
I would love it if once you did get some experience with the i7 Macbook Pro's you could tell me your opinions on their temps/heat.
I hope to buy one, but the thing currently holding me back is the reports (by PC authority) and lack of anyone on here giving their experience with their new MBP i7's, is the heat issue. I hear the old MBP's were ruff to have on your lap, and that article says the new ones are even worse. Im not trusting the article but its raised a doubt...so someone that has experience with them, getting info from them would be great.
I am a manager mainly on China legal consultation service and you know I mainly help international friends protect their business and rights in China. It is very very lucky that one customer in US tell us the place! Thank you so much,! I like it! I will introduce to my other international customers too!
Thank you so much and God bless you!
Carol
www.wincomchina.com.cn\t
www.wincomchina.com
HP IO Proxy and Apple's own qmasterd seem to trigger the dedicated GPU on my machine as well. how stupid is that!
What do you guys think are the chances that apple will release updates for their graphics changing software to improve it? Is Apple the type of company to try to fix things or they will leave it how it is? I would think they would try to update the software as much as possible considering it kills the battery usage (4-5 instead of 6-8 hours) and how long a charge lasts is like what apple holds dear.
What do you guys think are the chances that apple will release updates for their graphics changing software to improve it?
100%
Is Apple the type of company to try to fix things or they will leave it how it is?
They will leave it how it is until they have a fix for it. We'll likely never hear anything from Apple about it until there is an update for it. it might come in 10.6.4 thus requiring users to notice the difference or being a bullet point in 10.64. bug fix and optimization list. Or it could be a separate update, like the did with the zero day launch of these new MBPs.
100%
They will leave it how it is until they have a fix for it. We'll likely never hear anything from Apple about it until there is an update for it. it might come in 10.6.4 thus requiring users to notice the difference or being a bullet point in 10.64. bug fix and optimization list. Or it could be a separate update, like the did with the zero day launch of these new MBPs.
Im VERY happy to hear that. 4-5 hours of battery life is amazing to me, cause all laptops iv ever own/used have been typical windows dell/hp/toshiba laptops that have a 2 hours battery.
So 4-5 is epic, BUT...when your told "7-8 hours" by Apple and this is the MBP generation i plan on buying and keeping for years and years...getting the generation where they have the worst battery charge isnt ideal.