Check Dell and some other companies for similar offerings. All prices are in CAD.
I can't believe that anyone would even question the idea that most $1000 laptops are 1Gb, 160Gb, DVD-burner, etc.
Seriously, folks, do some research.
The middle config Macbook comes with a faster processor than any of those machines (15-20% faster) and 1GB of RAM. The first one from Future Shop also has a battery life of "up to two hours." Also, can you run OS X on those machines? Hmmm.
Threads like this inevitably degrade into "but PC specs are better!" arguments, especially once you see you're orginal point is moot. First it's the graphics chip, then it's the whole machine. If you're really that pissed about the graphics capbilities of a "thousand dollar laptop," (really...a THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!) go buy a PC instead.
The middle config Macbook comes with a faster processor than any of those machines (15-20% faster) and 1GB of RAM. The first one from Future Shop also has a battery life of "up to two hours." Also, can you run OS X on those machines? Hmmm.
Threads like this inevitably degrade into "but PC specs are better!" arguments, especially once you see you're orginal point is moot. First it's the graphics chip, then it's the whole machine. If you're really that pissed about the graphics capbilities of a "thousand dollar laptop," (really...a THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!) go buy a PC instead.
They're more than "a thousand dollars". The price is $1099, $1174 if you want an adequate amount of memory.
I like inviting someone to dinner and then make them pay. Same principal.
If you are going to refute anything that lacks a formal poll, you are missing the point. The original comment was, "college kids want 3D games." Where's the evidence? None. The only stat we appear to actually have is that the average age of game buyers is 29, which by the way is well outside of college range. My evidence comes from my observations as a college student from 2000-2004, but unfortunately I didn't carry around a pad and pen, taking down stats of video game habits during the time.
You do make a good point splinemodel. and I'm at a toss up on the Mac Book graphics. Obviously more than just students buy the machine so graphics options would be a better solution IMO, but the Mac Book Pro obviously still needs better graphics, or options on graphics cards.
If the MB had a graphics card, then MBP sales would drop sharply. Being in college, watching people buy laptops, I'd say there are three markets*:
1) The "basic use" people, who just need Word, Excel, Powerpoint, iTunes, and a web browser. Honestly, they could usually get by with OpenOffice, or in some cases Wordpad/TextEdit. They want a computer to take notes and that's it.
2) The "computer-based major" people, who use stuff like Maple, Adobe stuff, Visio, MathCAD, Matlab, whatever. This is engineers, computer programmers, and more and more science majors. They actually need the computer to do stuff, and will thus purchase a more expensive computer.
3) The hardcore gamers. They also fall into one of the above groups, but also play games a good bit. Honestly, a lot of them have desktops and then dirt-cheap laptops and play over WAN.
Of those groups, Macbook Pros are a hard sell to (3). In fact, anything that doesn't run Windows, they're just gonna put Windows on it. (1) buys a Macbook if you can convince them that they want something better than the $700 PoS + $150 for Office Student. The lack of a graphics card and the lack of a 7200rpm default HDD choice in Macbooks is what tempts (2) to look at MBPs.
That said, 1 > 2 >> 3. Most people at college party, or join clubs, or do stuff outside of video games, and those occasions where they do video game, it's on the PS2/Xbox/Wii in the common room, not the FPS on the laptop or at a LAN party. They exist, but they represent less than 5% of the college buyers.
The thing that people don't get is that Apple can completely forsake the LAN-party-goers and still be competitive in 90% of the laptop market.
* = this might be different at other colleges. UVA students probably have more disposable income, and probably have more doting of parents.
If the MB had a graphics card, then MBP sales would drop sharply. Being in college, watching people buy laptops, I'd say there are three markets*.
When I bought my iBook (which has dedicated graphics) I could have cared less what the Powerbook had for two main reasons. Number one, unlike most Mac users these days, I actually have a budget. The price tag on a 15" Powerbook was unaffordable. Second and even more important A 12" or 13" machine is easier to carry around a 15" notebook. I (try to) keep a desktop, so the extra features of the powerbook didn't interest me anyway.
See, Ben, you fall into group (1), the people who have no need for a MBP in the first place. My point was that people who did care about a GFX card would be downsell, not people who didn't care.
See, Ben, you fall into group (1), the people who have no need for a MBP in the first place. My point was that people who did care about a GFX card would be downsell, not people who didn't care.
You might be right. I don't know as they would drop sharply, but they mught drop.
See, Ben, you fall into group (1), the people who have no need for a MBP in the first place. My point was that people who did care about a GFX card would be downsell, not people who didn't care.
Your 3rd group is based on gaming? How many Mac gamers are there? Practacally none. What....? Do you think a quadro is made for gaming?
Jason Schleifer (dreamworks) used to (weta digital LOTR trilogy) and maybe still does use a Mac laptop when doing SFX and animation. THere is a lot more to 3D and graphics than just gamers.
Jason Schleifer (dreamworks) used to (weta digital LOTR trilogy) and maybe still does use a Mac laptop when doing SFX and animation. THere is a lot more to 3D and graphics than just gamers.
If you need top end 3D performance, you probably know that already, and won't buy a macbook. Case closed.
With 1 gb ram on duo mini you can barely play 720 video (xvid) avi files. Now maybe my system is not optimally configured, but it is configured for normal work. Playing 2 or 3 divx avi movies 640x480 (yes i'm ADD) at the same time tends to cause choppy performance.
I have none of these problems on my MBP 1.83 with it x1600 ati card. It would be great if apple would get nVidia to make an nForce for the mini and macBook, but looks like Apple has to kiss Intels A$$ for a while to keep getting Pro CPU's first.
With 1 gb ram on duo mini you can barely play 720 video (xvid) avi files. Now maybe my system is not optimally configured, but it is configured for normal work. Playing 2 or 3 divx avi movies 640x480 (yes i'm ADD) at the same time tends to cause choppy performance.
I have none of these problems on my MBP 1.83 with it x1600 ati card.
That's wonderful, but the GPU has nothing to do with it, since XviD decoding isn't GPU-accelerated.
With 1 gb ram on duo mini you can barely play 720 video (xvid) avi files. Now maybe my system is not optimally configured, but it is configured for normal work.
Something must be wrong with your machine. My duo mini can play a 1080p movie. It stutters trying to play two at once but 720 xvids play just fine. Are you using Quicktime to watch Xvids?
Something must be wrong with your machine. My duo mini can play a 1080p movie. It stutters trying to play two at once but 720 xvids play just fine. Are you using Quicktime to watch Xvids?
You could have just said use VLC rather than wait for reply to say it.
I suspect that the X3000 is getting a particularly bad rep right now because there are known efficiency issues in MacOSX's OpenGL implementation, and the Intel drivers on the PC are acknowledged to be weak (ergo, the Mac drivers are no doubt just as bad or worse). Drivers are quite finicky when it comes to getting all the performance and features right, so they take time to mature and be perfected. OSX 10.5's OpenGL implementation (and QuickTime) are apparently receiving a significant overhaul which bodes well for graphics performance, and the X3000 is a prime candidate for seeing these improvements.
I don't expect Apple to move away from the Intel IG solutions, but there is good reason to hope -- look at the big strides made by Intel in the last couple of generations. They have gone from truly abysmal to competitive (even without good drivers), and give every sign of continuing to push the envelope.
Incidentally, the "entry level" Mac mini and MacBook both have no issue decoding 1080p video, even encoded with h.264. As long as it's not the (now discontinued) Core Solo Mac mini.
Comments
Acer: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pro...0086065&catid=
Toshiba: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pro...0084126&catid=
HP:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...87&catid=20354
Check Dell and some other companies for similar offerings. All prices are in CAD.
I can't believe that anyone would even question the idea that most $1000 laptops are 1Gb, 160Gb, DVD-burner, etc.
Seriously, folks, do some research.
These are not a all comparable to MacBook's spec. Weaker CPU, much bulkier form factor, weaker connectivity/network, to name a few.
Acer: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pro...0086065&catid=
Toshiba: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pro...0084126&catid=
HP:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodde...87&catid=20354
Check Dell and some other companies for similar offerings. All prices are in CAD.
I can't believe that anyone would even question the idea that most $1000 laptops are 1Gb, 160Gb, DVD-burner, etc.
Seriously, folks, do some research.
The middle config Macbook comes with a faster processor than any of those machines (15-20% faster) and 1GB of RAM. The first one from Future Shop also has a battery life of "up to two hours."
Threads like this inevitably degrade into "but PC specs are better!" arguments, especially once you see you're orginal point is moot. First it's the graphics chip, then it's the whole machine. If you're really that pissed about the graphics capbilities of a "thousand dollar laptop," (really...a THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!) go buy a PC instead.
The middle config Macbook comes with a faster processor than any of those machines (15-20% faster) and 1GB of RAM. The first one from Future Shop also has a battery life of "up to two hours."
Threads like this inevitably degrade into "but PC specs are better!" arguments, especially once you see you're orginal point is moot. First it's the graphics chip, then it's the whole machine. If you're really that pissed about the graphics capbilities of a "thousand dollar laptop," (really...a THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!!) go buy a PC instead.
They're more than "a thousand dollars". The price is $1099, $1174 if you want an adequate amount of memory.
They're more than "a thousand dollars". The price is $1099, $1174 if you want an adequate amount of memory.
You're really not understanding the point I'm making.
I like inviting someone to dinner and then make them pay. Same principal.
If you are going to refute anything that lacks a formal poll, you are missing the point. The original comment was, "college kids want 3D games." Where's the evidence? None. The only stat we appear to actually have is that the average age of game buyers is 29, which by the way is well outside of college range. My evidence comes from my observations as a college student from 2000-2004, but unfortunately I didn't carry around a pad and pen, taking down stats of video game habits during the time.
You do make a good point splinemodel. and I'm at a toss up on the Mac Book graphics. Obviously more than just students buy the machine so graphics options would be a better solution IMO, but the Mac Book Pro obviously still needs better graphics, or options on graphics cards.
If the MB had a graphics card, then MBP sales would drop sharply. Being in college, watching people buy laptops, I'd say there are three markets*:
1) The "basic use" people, who just need Word, Excel, Powerpoint, iTunes, and a web browser. Honestly, they could usually get by with OpenOffice, or in some cases Wordpad/TextEdit. They want a computer to take notes and that's it.
2) The "computer-based major" people, who use stuff like Maple, Adobe stuff, Visio, MathCAD, Matlab, whatever. This is engineers, computer programmers, and more and more science majors. They actually need the computer to do stuff, and will thus purchase a more expensive computer.
3) The hardcore gamers. They also fall into one of the above groups, but also play games a good bit. Honestly, a lot of them have desktops and then dirt-cheap laptops and play over WAN.
Of those groups, Macbook Pros are a hard sell to (3). In fact, anything that doesn't run Windows, they're just gonna put Windows on it. (1) buys a Macbook if you can convince them that they want something better than the $700 PoS + $150 for Office Student. The lack of a graphics card and the lack of a 7200rpm default HDD choice in Macbooks is what tempts (2) to look at MBPs.
That said, 1 > 2 >> 3. Most people at college party, or join clubs, or do stuff outside of video games, and those occasions where they do video game, it's on the PS2/Xbox/Wii in the common room, not the FPS on the laptop or at a LAN party. They exist, but they represent less than 5% of the college buyers.
The thing that people don't get is that Apple can completely forsake the LAN-party-goers and still be competitive in 90% of the laptop market.
* = this might be different at other colleges. UVA students probably have more disposable income, and probably have more doting of parents.
If the MB had a graphics card, then MBP sales would drop sharply. Being in college, watching people buy laptops, I'd say there are three markets*.
When I bought my iBook (which has dedicated graphics) I could have cared less what the Powerbook had for two main reasons. Number one, unlike most Mac users these days, I actually have a budget. The price tag on a 15" Powerbook was unaffordable. Second and even more important A 12" or 13" machine is easier to carry around a 15" notebook. I (try to) keep a desktop, so the extra features of the powerbook didn't interest me anyway.
See, Ben, you fall into group (1), the people who have no need for a MBP in the first place. My point was that people who did care about a GFX card would be downsell, not people who didn't care.
You might be right. I don't know as they would drop sharply, but they mught drop.
See, Ben, you fall into group (1), the people who have no need for a MBP in the first place. My point was that people who did care about a GFX card would be downsell, not people who didn't care.
Your 3rd group is based on gaming? How many Mac gamers are there? Practacally none. What....? Do you think a quadro is made for gaming?
Jason Schleifer (dreamworks) used to (weta digital LOTR trilogy) and maybe still does use a Mac laptop when doing SFX and animation. THere is a lot more to 3D and graphics than just gamers.
Jason Schleifer (dreamworks) used to (weta digital LOTR trilogy) and maybe still does use a Mac laptop when doing SFX and animation. THere is a lot more to 3D and graphics than just gamers.
If you need top end 3D performance, you probably know that already, and won't buy a macbook. Case closed.
http://computershopper.com/shoptalk/...ro_set_to_laun
I hope Apple releases a Mac mini with that chip soon afterwards. Actually, I hope Apple does *not* update the Mac mini until then. :-)
If Apple does release a Mac mini with that chip, I'm buying one. My current Mac is 7 years old already...
If you need top end 3D performance, you probably know that already, and won't buy a macbook. Case closed.
I forgot we were only talking about the MB.
I have none of these problems on my MBP 1.83 with it x1600 ati card. It would be great if apple would get nVidia to make an nForce for the mini and macBook, but looks like Apple has to kiss Intels A$$ for a while to keep getting Pro CPU's first.
Michael
With 1 gb ram on duo mini you can barely play 720 video (xvid) avi files. Now maybe my system is not optimally configured, but it is configured for normal work. Playing 2 or 3 divx avi movies 640x480 (yes i'm ADD) at the same time tends to cause choppy performance.
I have none of these problems on my MBP 1.83 with it x1600 ati card.
That's wonderful, but the GPU has nothing to do with it, since XviD decoding isn't GPU-accelerated.
With 1 gb ram on duo mini you can barely play 720 video (xvid) avi files. Now maybe my system is not optimally configured, but it is configured for normal work.
Something must be wrong with your machine. My duo mini can play a 1080p movie. It stutters trying to play two at once but 720 xvids play just fine. Are you using Quicktime to watch Xvids?
Something must be wrong with your machine. My duo mini can play a 1080p movie. It stutters trying to play two at once but 720 xvids play just fine. Are you using Quicktime to watch Xvids?
You could have just said use VLC rather than wait for reply to say it.
I don't expect Apple to move away from the Intel IG solutions, but there is good reason to hope -- look at the big strides made by Intel in the last couple of generations. They have gone from truly abysmal to competitive (even without good drivers), and give every sign of continuing to push the envelope.