[pickanyone]

I realize you don't buy a Mac to play games (that's why i still play civ III) but my point is games can help switchers. And the amount of good games for the Mac is a chicken and egg argument. It depends on 2 factors, market share and hardware to provide a quality gaming experience. By crippling a consumer machine for gaming you
a) lose PC people who were considering switching but have a child who wants to play games (and was prepared to do so using boot camp)
b) upset developers that a flagship CONSUMER product will not even play current games well.
'a' is more important than 'b' as, rightly or wrongly, market share is still used by developers to justify their lack of support for the Mac.
Bootcamp is an opportunity to bring a group of buyers to the platform and the lack of graphics capability for gaming on the Macbook weakens this opportunity. Which is a shame.
Now, where's my SLI dual graphics card ultra thin powerbook? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[djones]

I am stunned by the two posters who obviously didn't take the time to read the comments to this article already, or for whatever reason don't believe me.
Civ 4 runs just fine on a Macbook with enough memory. And that's the BootCamp / XP Civ4! If the Mac version doesn't run as well, don't blame Apple for the hardware, blame Aspyr for two-bit porting. FWIW, Civ4's requirements even on the PC are "high" for a Civ game. It's a departure for the series to use such a hardware intense rendering engine, but that's what they chose.
Don't forget that Macbook is also not supported as a platform for Final Cut Studio, and this site, others, and my personal experience is that it is just fine.

[griffman]

On the PC side of the world, no entry-level consumer laptop is going to play the latest 3D games. Why would it be expected that Apple's machine would? That seems an unfair requirement. On either platform, if you want a gaming laptop, you need to step up above the consumer machines.
Also, most typical 'consumer' games, especially those that a parent will purchase for a child to play, are going to play just fine on the MacBook. The things that kill it are lush 3D landscapes with hundreds of monsters spewing molten lightning bolts and huge explosions at your character. Most kids games are simple affairs, with animated sprites on simple, static backgrounds. These things will play just fine.
-rob.

[pickanyone]

"Stunned" is a little harsh, and no need to get personal.
Our posts are more to do with Apple's hardware gaming capability in general than Civ 4 specifically.
That said, it is encouraging that Civ 4 does run ok, particularly as you say it has high demands for a civ type game.
Our comments would be moot if Apple offered something smallere than a 15 inch macbook pro that was an adequate gaming machine. And by smaller I mean both size and cost. Lots of people do buy computers to play games and if Apple offered something for less than $2000 they would potentially have a lot of interest.

[pickanyone]

griffman,
fair point on expecting a basic consumer laptop to play the latest and greatest. I am just frustrated that Apple have missed an opportunity by not allowing a build to order option to allow those who are preapred to spend the money on an upgraded macbook that can be used for gaming. There is quite a price difference between a macbook and a macbook pro. A $1500ish machine that had a macbooks genral power but very good 3d graphics would appear achievable given that the rest of the macbook is extremely capable for a very reasonable price.
I guess I am advocating a macbook plus, which is just a macbook with a much better video system. It would seem to naturally fit into the current line-up both performance and pricewise.
I might even pay an extra $150 to get it in black /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[moose_n_squirrel]

In reply to:

---

On the PC side of the world, no entry-level consumer laptop is going to play the latest 3D games. Why would it be expected that Apple's machine would? That seems an unfair requirement. On either platform, if you want a gaming laptop, you need to step up above the consumer machines.

---

I am not a gamer, but I think I get what Apple is doing. Apple has consciously done exactly what the PC world does, and cut gamers out of the bottom end.
And that makes total sense to me.
There are two kinds of computer users in the world. Those who need/want the best possible hardware, and those who don't. The users who need the best possible hardware are the media users (graphics, photo, video, audio) and...the gamers.
Those who don't need the best possible hardware are the web-surfing, Word-using, e-mailing, iPod-hosting masses, like my friend who bought a MacBook. They'll never need the best video card, and they'll never notice that they run shared video memory.
The gamers, on the other hand, are never going to be satisfied with anything but the best video cards and overall throughput everywhere in the system. Just like the pros.
So Apple probably decided that there's no way for all components to satisfy gamers at the low end and keep the price down, so why not nudge gamers where their hardware needs suggest they go: to the high-end hardware. Gamers may not be pros in terms of income, but they always demand pro hardware, so in that way kicking the gamers up to the pro line seems to make sense. I am sure I'll get flamed for this but it all fits together.

[nickatdtgeeks]

How does the MacBook's 3D performance compare to the iBook G4?

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

And that's the BootCamp / XP Civ4! If the Mac version doesn't run as well, don't blame Apple for the hardware, blame Aspyr for two-bit porting

---

That's a totally unfair assumption. There are distinct and major performance differences between Mac OS X and Windows XP, especially comparing DirectX and OpenGL, and those are completely beyond Aspyr's control. Certain ineffeciencies in the porting process that are going to impact performance as well.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

Bootcamp is an opportunity to bring a group of buyers to the platform and the lack of graphics capability for gaming on the Macbook weakens this opportunity. Which is a shame.

---

A MacBook and Boot Camp may be a gateway drug, however, that will attract Windows users to the platform who may ultimately create market pressure for Apple to produce a consumer laptop with better graphics performance. It's long row to hoe, I admit, but I'm not pessimistic that Apple has done the wrong thing here. The MacBook is still a powerful machine for its price, it's just not ideal for gaming. And you can't even say that much for the vast majority of PC laptops that are in the same price range.

[lookmark]

I'll chime in that (with 1GB of RAM, goes w/o saying) WoW on a MacBook is playable, but not great. If you're starting do 40-man raids, you may not find it acceptable.
Lots of great information about WoW and MacBooks (or any Mac) here.
In that forum, by the way, and FWIW: Blizzard mentioned that Apple is "actively working" on both improving the 950 drivers and OpenGL improvements in future updates that will help close the gap between XP and OS X performance.

[Immeral]

In reply to:

---

There are two kinds of computer users in the world. Those who need/want the best possible hardware, and those who don't. The users who need the best possible hardware are the media users (graphics, photo, video, audio) and...the gamers.

---

Why is it always an all or nothing approach for some folks?! Yes, there are hard core gamers, serious gamers, fanatical gamers... ones that do crazy things like overclocking chips just to get another 2fps more. But there are folks who play games that aren't like this, who play maybe only once in while... occasional gamers. Or maybe it's their kid's computer who uses it mostly for school work but would like to play a games when on break from homework. IMHO the Macbook is aimed at this group (esp. students) who their parents or themselves can't afford a Macbook Pro. Yes, they don't need max settings and crazy fps rates. And yes, they might have to set settings lower but it should be able to play a game that is two years old (maybe a year?).

[Immeral]

In reply to:

---

I'm not pessimistic that Apple has done the wrong thing here. The MacBook is still a powerful machine for its price, it's just not ideal for gaming. And you can't even say that much for the vast majority of PC laptops that are in the same price range.

---

I think Apple missed an opportunity though. I just wish Apple didn't choose an average integrated graphics chipset for an above average laptop.

[djones]

In reply to:

---

That's a totally unfair assumption. There are distinct and major performance differences between Mac OS X and Windows XP, especially comparing DirectX and OpenGL, and those are completely beyond Aspyr's control. Certain ineffeciencies in the porting process that are going to impact performance as well.

---

Well I think any assumption in general about something a) not played and b) not released is unfair; which was essentially my point to the people complaining that Civ4 won't run. So far most things that have been said as "won't run" or "not supported" on the Macbook are either at least playable in the worst scenario, and screaming in the best.
And I don't mean offense to Aspyr, as they aren't the only ones, and there are certainly time, budgetary, and licensing constraints, but in my opinion, there has only been one video game company that consistently delivers excellent ports, rewriting whatever is necessary to accomplish the end goal between any of the systems, and that is Treyarch. No one else has come close.
Minimum System Requirements in general are a mixed bag, too, as it's essentially up to the marketing department to figure out what minimum system makes them feel comfortable with the game's quality. For some this could be not high enough, and others would be happy to play with less; it's entirely subjective. The main issue is that min. sys requirements cannot be taken literally, unless the developer has specifically locked out either the installation or the runtime from operating on said systems.

[Kees]

if only it was average. Of the three main (and current) chipsets with integrated graphics out there, (Intel, ATi and nVidia) the GMA 950 is by far the slowest.
It doesn't even support transform and lighting in hardware! The last grahics accelerator to not support that feature that shipped in a Mac was the Rage 128 Pro. The last iBook which didn't support T&L in hardware was discontinued in may of 2002!! It's not very current technology, and imo it doesn't belong in a mid-range laptop ($1100,- is not low-end)
I can somewhat see how the entry level MacBook would use integrated graphics, but the top-of the line, as a 12" PowerBook replacement, should at least have an option for dedicated graphics.