I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but out of curiosity:
Intel specs the GMA 950 as using "up to" 224MB of shared memory.
Apple specs the Mini as using the 950 with 64MB of shared memory.
If the memory is shared and not resident on the Intel chip, why the discrepancy?
Access is access, so I can't see why you'd artificially limit the RAM addressing capabilities of your graphics chip, unless the fact that the Mini ships stock with 512MB of system memory means allowing the Intel graphics to take half of that would mean an unacceptable hit on all-over system performance?
And if that's the case, would shipping a gig of ram stock and providing "unthrottled" integrated graphics mean a big graphics performance boost, as in the case of moving from a 64MB to a 128MB card (comparing 64MB integrated to 224MB integrated, of course--I get that the shared scheme is slower overall than a dedicated card).
A dedicated card usually just uses it's own, faster then RAM memory. When you're using RAM for graphics, you stealing general system memory, not to mention it's slower. Basically, you can set how much ram you want the IG to take in the BIOS. Apple sets it for you at 64, Intel says that you can set it up to 224MB if you really wanted to.
I've never even unwrapped the VGA adapter for my iBook. I would guess fewer than 50% of iBook users ever connect their lappies to a monitor at all. Apple could save costs by eliminating that part.
Isn't Intel close to an integrated graphics chipset that is about on a par with the Radeon 9600 for both 3D and 2D? I seem to remember reading something about this. In any case, that's about all the juice I really need -- if they were to do something like that an integrated chipset would be fine by me.
I hope Apple gets on with it though, or I'll have to plump for the basic MacBook Pro.
The part costs for small cameras (especially lower rez ones) is VERY cheap, largely due to cell phone production. The edu MacBook won't need the camera but the consumer one will. To keep from making another sku, I suspect that all models of MacBook will likely have a camera.
Case
For production cost savings and product differentiation it will be made of plastic. Hopefully not iPod plastic...
Graphics
Integrated, needed for price reasons. If you honestly think there is even a chance for dedicated graphics you likely have enough cash to afford a MacBook Pro anyway as you can obviously afford some good smoke.
Memory
As always, the bare minimum needed to run the system will be standard.
CPU
Lowest model will be solo for cost/edu support reasons. Highest will have a dual core at slower speeds than MacBook Pro. Maybe/possibly equal to the slowest Pro model as an upgrade.
Hard drive
Don't be surprised to see the lowest models with slow drives as standard, again for cost reasons.
Dual Monitor support
Nope. Product differentiation and integrated graphics will put a fork in that one.
The WinBloze dual-boot bit will allow edu purchasers to put a nail in the coffins of the "We need to buy PC's because when these kids join the workforce they will be using window's" crowd. But it will only be effective if they have a model that is cheap enough that the "PC's are cheaper than Mac's crowd" (which is not true over the product life cycle, but a common war cry from WinBloze diehards) can be subdued.
The edu market is important not due to sales #'s but just to expose kids to Mac's. Sadly, they will be exposed to slow, stripped down machines, but that's just the economics of it. It's not like the Dell's that are competing for the edu business are screamers anyway.
In short, I would like a MacBook with all of the juicy specs and prices that some here are salivating for as well. But then I wouldn't need to buy a MacBook Pro, would I?
What?!? You mean you weren't happy with a PPC binary of Quicken 2006, OmniOutliner and ComicLife? What do you want blood?
LOL. I'm pleased about the OO and I've not checked out Comic Life yet. Perhaps I'll use the Quicken but it always sucks to know just how much money you "don't" have LOL.
Beyond getting the specs right, how about not screwing up by...
Make sure it doesn't get insanely hot.
Make sure the capacitors don't emit annoying squeals.
Require better screen quality control from the manufacturer.
etc.
There seems to be a lot of problems with the early MacBook Pros. I haven't heard of any rampant problems with the new iMacs.
Hardware-wise, I expect we'll see the same things all the other manufacturers are putting in their $999 laptops, with maybe an Apple goodie or two - like standard wi-fi, Bluetooth, and the 3.5mm optical audio connector. Probably a camera, too, since that seems to be a standard "feature" now (ugh).
Again to seperate the iBook replacement from the MacBook Pro there will be a lack of features and i doubt screen spanning will appear on the feature list - the reason for this (and why i believe that they will not have build in iSight cameras) is because they are still aimed at the eductation market where screen spanning is unnessessary. (the iSight would introduce a camera infront of every child and would have over protective parents livid)
Why would they go out of their way to disable screen spanning when it comes in the integrated chip set? They need to provide a video out port anyway for the edu market (where educators connect to a projector).
iSight is also useful in the edu market for distance learning, etc. Leaving it out is also dumb. K-8 is not the only edu market and even within the K-8 market isn't not a show stopper if they include a sliding cover with the camera.
The Mac Mini used intergrated graphics because of size. Yes it will share the same components, but a dity little secret is that iMac and MBP share those components too. The Macbook isn't just replacing the iBook either. I expect Apple to put a Radeon x13/1400 or GeForce Go 73/7400 with at least 64mb of memory.
Do you think there will be a version for Intel Macs with integrated graphics?
What exactly is wrong with integrated graphics, it sounds like a sensible idea to me provided you have lots of RAM.
Andrew
Integrated graphics makes the CPU do graphic chores. In short, it slows the whole machine down in a major way. It typically also uses up 80mb or so of system memory for its operation.
A few years ago integrated graphics really sucked hard. It has gotten a bit better over the last few years but frankly it still sucks. If you are just roaming the web and sending emails and playing Tetris it works fine, but if you want to do anything graphics intensive it just sucks. Of course the more memory you have and the faster your CPU, the less it sucks. But even a wimpy dedicated chip is usually better than any form of integrated graphics.
In short, people who want to play Doom type games or WOW on a Mac portable for $999 will not be happy if Apple puts integrated graphics on the new MacBook. But at the same time Apple is being pressured (espectially for the education market) to make cheap MacBooks.
There have been calls for Apple to add another level in the middle that has dedicated graphics and costs a little more. Apple may surprise us and do just that, some sort of entry level MacBook, then the MacBook, to go along with the MacBook Pro. This is really what they will need to do in the long run anyway if they want to attract any significant volume of switchers.
That said, my bet is better CPU's but integrated graphics.
Doesn't the iMac only "officially" support mirroring and not spanning. You have to enact a firmware hack to support spanning I thought????
Quote:
Originally posted by Merovingian
The MacBook is what I refer to here.
I think the MacBook will be a great hit, if they do the following: Don't put in an integrated graphics chip, like the Mac mini. Apparently components will be shared, between the Mac mini and MacBook. Hopefully this excludes the graphics card. Make the MacBook able to span across multiple screens. They did it with the iMac. Apple, don't screw it up...
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but out of curiosity:
Intel specs the GMA 950 as using "up to" 224MB of shared memory.
Apple specs the Mini as using the 950 with 64MB of shared memory.
If the memory is shared and not resident on the Intel chip, why the discrepancy?
Access is access, so I can't see why you'd artificially limit the RAM addressing capabilities of your graphics chip, unless the fact that the Mini ships stock with 512MB of system memory means allowing the Intel graphics to take half of that would mean an unacceptable hit on all-over system performance?
And if that's the case, would shipping a gig of ram stock and providing "unthrottled" integrated graphics mean a big graphics performance boost, as in the case of moving from a 64MB to a 128MB card (comparing 64MB integrated to 224MB integrated, of course--I get that the shared scheme is slower overall than a dedicated card).
A dedicated card usually just uses it's own, faster then RAM memory. When you're using RAM for graphics, you stealing general system memory, not to mention it's slower. Basically, you can set how much ram you want the IG to take in the BIOS. Apple sets it for you at 64, Intel says that you can set it up to 224MB if you really wanted to.
Intel says the maximum the GMA will use is 224MB. I haven't seen an official maximum from Apple.
I hope Apple gets on with it though, or I'll have to plump for the basic MacBook Pro.
so I doubt you'll see any major improvements until Apple updates the MBP's
to Meron or better.
I'm pretty sure there will be a very basic MacBook for the k-12 education
market which will probably be single core.
I would also expect an upgraded version to perform at least on the level
of the Core Duo mini.
It will be interesting to see how much Apple offers in the 13 WS MBP compared
to the MacBooks.
Guess we'll know soon.
The part costs for small cameras (especially lower rez ones) is VERY cheap, largely due to cell phone production. The edu MacBook won't need the camera but the consumer one will. To keep from making another sku, I suspect that all models of MacBook will likely have a camera.
Case
For production cost savings and product differentiation it will be made of plastic. Hopefully not iPod plastic...
Graphics
Integrated, needed for price reasons. If you honestly think there is even a chance for dedicated graphics you likely have enough cash to afford a MacBook Pro anyway as you can obviously afford some good smoke.
Memory
As always, the bare minimum needed to run the system will be standard.
CPU
Lowest model will be solo for cost/edu support reasons. Highest will have a dual core at slower speeds than MacBook Pro. Maybe/possibly equal to the slowest Pro model as an upgrade.
Hard drive
Don't be surprised to see the lowest models with slow drives as standard, again for cost reasons.
Dual Monitor support
Nope. Product differentiation and integrated graphics will put a fork in that one.
The WinBloze dual-boot bit will allow edu purchasers to put a nail in the coffins of the "We need to buy PC's because when these kids join the workforce they will be using window's" crowd. But it will only be effective if they have a model that is cheap enough that the "PC's are cheaper than Mac's crowd" (which is not true over the product life cycle, but a common war cry from WinBloze diehards) can be subdued.
The edu market is important not due to sales #'s but just to expose kids to Mac's. Sadly, they will be exposed to slow, stripped down machines, but that's just the economics of it. It's not like the Dell's that are competing for the edu business are screamers anyway.
In short, I would like a MacBook with all of the juicy specs and prices that some here are salivating for as well. But then I wouldn't need to buy a MacBook Pro, would I?
Corey
8)
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yeah I was a little ticked that my mini didn't come with Appleworks or even better iWork. I'm going to use that more than I use iMovie or iDVD.
What?!? You mean you weren't happy with a PPC binary of Quicken 2006, OmniOutliner and ComicLife? What do you want blood?
Originally posted by TenoBell
From what I understand the minimum Mac mini IG will use is 64MB, some websites say in the real world use the Mac mini IG uses 80MB.
Nope. On mine the GFX card uses 19Mb on a 1680x1050 display running just regular desktop software.
Originally posted by dr_lha
What?!? You mean you weren't happy with a PPC binary of Quicken 2006, OmniOutliner and ComicLife? What do you want blood?
LOL. I'm pleased about the OO and I've not checked out Comic Life yet. Perhaps I'll use the Quicken but it always sucks to know just how much money you "don't" have LOL.
I'll only take blood if it's B Positive
Originally posted by dr_lha
You may cry about your lack of money, but Quicken's user interface makes baby Jesus cry.
Not quite sure..is that a good thing or bad thing? I heard Quicken Mac wasn't as full featured as the PC version but hell my needs aren't extensive.
Make sure it doesn't get insanely hot.
Make sure the capacitors don't emit annoying squeals.
Require better screen quality control from the manufacturer.
etc.
There seems to be a lot of problems with the early MacBook Pros. I haven't heard of any rampant problems with the new iMacs.
Hardware-wise, I expect we'll see the same things all the other manufacturers are putting in their $999 laptops, with maybe an Apple goodie or two - like standard wi-fi, Bluetooth, and the 3.5mm optical audio connector. Probably a camera, too, since that seems to be a standard "feature" now (ugh).
- Jasen.
Originally posted by dr_lha
You may cry about your lack of money, but Quicken's user interface makes baby Jesus cry.
Amen...
Originally posted by fezzasus
Again to seperate the iBook replacement from the MacBook Pro there will be a lack of features and i doubt screen spanning will appear on the feature list - the reason for this (and why i believe that they will not have build in iSight cameras) is because they are still aimed at the eductation market where screen spanning is unnessessary. (the iSight would introduce a camera infront of every child and would have over protective parents livid)
Why would they go out of their way to disable screen spanning when it comes in the integrated chip set? They need to provide a video out port anyway for the edu market (where educators connect to a projector).
iSight is also useful in the edu market for distance learning, etc. Leaving it out is also dumb. K-8 is not the only edu market and even within the K-8 market isn't not a show stopper if they include a sliding cover with the camera.
Vinea
I agree that Apple would be using very poor judgement to disable screen spanning on their most affordable laptops.
As and educator, you should write Apple Corporate and voice your concerns.
Personally I love it. But 99% of the people who have Powerbooks I see giving presentations do the following:
1. Plug in the projector
2. Look up at the screen. Scratch their heads as to why it looks different than whats on the powerbook screen.
3. Stand their clueless for a few minutes.
4. Ignore me shouting "Start the Presentation" or "Press F5" from the back row.
5. Eventually someone runs up front and presses F5 for them.
6. Projector screen changes to their desktop and they look happy.
iBook owners don't have this issue.
Do you think there will be a version for Intel Macs with integrated graphics?
What exactly is wrong with integrated graphics, it sounds like a sensible idea to me provided you have lots of RAM.
Andrew
Originally posted by SquidThing
I have no problems whatsoever with Screen Spanning Doctor on my iBook.
Do you think there will be a version for Intel Macs with integrated graphics?
What exactly is wrong with integrated graphics, it sounds like a sensible idea to me provided you have lots of RAM.
Andrew
Integrated graphics makes the CPU do graphic chores. In short, it slows the whole machine down in a major way. It typically also uses up 80mb or so of system memory for its operation.
A few years ago integrated graphics really sucked hard. It has gotten a bit better over the last few years but frankly it still sucks. If you are just roaming the web and sending emails and playing Tetris it works fine, but if you want to do anything graphics intensive it just sucks. Of course the more memory you have and the faster your CPU, the less it sucks. But even a wimpy dedicated chip is usually better than any form of integrated graphics.
In short, people who want to play Doom type games or WOW on a Mac portable for $999 will not be happy if Apple puts integrated graphics on the new MacBook. But at the same time Apple is being pressured (espectially for the education market) to make cheap MacBooks.
There have been calls for Apple to add another level in the middle that has dedicated graphics and costs a little more. Apple may surprise us and do just that, some sort of entry level MacBook, then the MacBook, to go along with the MacBook Pro. This is really what they will need to do in the long run anyway if they want to attract any significant volume of switchers.
That said, my bet is better CPU's but integrated graphics.
Originally posted by Merovingian
The MacBook is what I refer to here.
I think the MacBook will be a great hit, if they do the following: Don't put in an integrated graphics chip, like the Mac mini. Apparently components will be shared, between the Mac mini and MacBook. Hopefully this excludes the graphics card.
Make the MacBook able to span across multiple screens. They did it with the iMac.
Apple, don't screw it up...