[robco]

As pointed out, most laptops in the MacBook's size and price range also use integrated graphics. It's not just cost, but the extra heat generated. Apple had to downclock the 15" MBP and the things still get hot. The new Dell XPS M1210 looks nice - and is available with a GeForce Go 7400, but it's not exactly inexpensive. All things considered, the MacBook is very competitive in its class.
I do agree that it would have been nice for Apple to put an X1400 or 7400 as an option, but it may not have been feasible given the size and heat constraints. Not to mention the hit in battery life.
It's a trade-off. Given Apple's history, it's not surprising that they went with smaller, lighter, with longer battery life.

[MBBuyer]

In reply to:

---

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.

---

LOL, being one of the two I guess I was "deceived" by this
If youre looking to play Sims 2, Quake 4, Doom 3, or the upcoming Civilization IV on your Mac, the MacBook is not the machine for you. You will not have a pleasant experience playing anything that relies on accelerated graphics. Macworld has proven this to be the case with the gaming benchmark results for both the mini and the MacBook.
and this
sometimes there are framerate drops when moving across heavily populated maps at certain zoom levels. I'd turn some of the settings down, but it doesn't bother me,

[irolley]

Wow, I was amazed by the comment suggesting to go away and buy an Xbox. DUDE ! This is a Mac site I want Mac info. This is the type of comment that kill Mac Gaming. The iMac can run Quake 4, COD2, Doom 3 pretty well. The XBox is a gaming system and any game will always run properly on it. Whether you are right or not is not the point, I Don't want to sound like an evangelist but come on, if you don't believe in gaming on a Mac then your article is pointless.
I appreciated Peter's article on Mac Gaming and the involvement Apple needed to take, but writing an article telling me to look elsewhere is inappropriate.
I appreciated your Quake 3 benchmarks although something like CoD:UO would have been welcome.

[Fixx]

But it is realistic to say that if you really want to play seriously a console is a good option. But of course it is different than playing with a mac. And not everybody has a good TV set for console.
More interesting is wether Bootcamp will kill mac gaming. There is a possibility that when PC games can be played on a mac using Bootcamp, no one bothers to port games anymore... which would be a pity. I think I am NOT going to install XP to my machine just to play games.

[griffman]

"Whether you are right or not is not the point, I Don't want to sound like an evangelist but come on, if you don't believe in gaming on a Mac then your article is pointless."
Actually, whether I'm right or not is exactly the point. Or are you telling me we should ignore the facts? Most people who play games really just want the best gaming experience possible -- that's why so many of us (myself included) have a PC and/or console sitting next to our Macs. While I strongly support the Mac gaming market (I've bought every major release I've been interested in, even if I had already played it on the PC), the truth is that both consoles and PCs offer a better gaming exeperience.
And I didn't generically that you should not game on a Mac in general. I said that the best possible gaming experience will not be had on a Mac. There's no reason not to own a console (or several) and a Mac. If that's your approach, you might as well get rid of the dishwashing machine in your house, because the sink is quite capable of washing dishes, too. It just turns out that one tool is much better for the job than the other.
The main point, though, was that if you are serious about gaming on the Mac, then the MacBook is not the right machine.
"I appreciated your Quake 3 benchmarks although something like CoD:UO would have been welcome. "
Umm, I tested CoD, and found it to be unplayable:
"Finally, I tried Call of Duty under Rosetta, which was one of my favorite games of years past. The training grounds were encouragingframe rates varied from 40 to 60. Training, though, happens during a nice sunny afternoon. The first mission occurs during a stormy night, which saw frame rates plummet into the 12 to 15 range. Not very playable as is, but a Universal version is in the works, which should result in higher frame rates."
CoD:UO is a newer expansion pack, so I would expect similar to worse results. In other words, no need to test it -- at least until Universal binary patches come out.
-rob.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

More interesting is wether Bootcamp will kill mac gaming

---

My own take on this is that Boot Camp won't kill Mac gaming, but will certainly change it. I expect we're going to see even fewer high-profile "hardcore" games than we do now, though we'll continue to see conversions that have mass-market appeal, like The Sims 2.
But only time will tell.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

I said that the best possible gaming experience will not be had on a Mac. There's no reason not to own a console (or several) and a Mac.

---

Some people might be surprised to know that this is a sentiment I agree with -- in fact, that's largely the undercurrent that provoked me to write my recent editorial. There are serious shortcomings of Mac OS X right now that are preventing Macs from realizing their true potential as game machines.
But even if all of those were addressed tomorrow, it wouldn't fix the fact that many people just don't buy games for their Mac, or that most developers out there don't know the first thing about creating a Mac OS X game. There needs to be a coordinated, multi-level effort to improve the state of gaming on the Mac in order for it to work. Because the current situation just isn't tenable.

[carlec]

In reply to:

---

But even if all of those were addressed tomorrow, it wouldn't fix the fact that many people just don't buy games for their Mac, or that most developers out there don't know the first thing about creating a Mac OS X game. There needs to be a coordinated, multi-level effort to improve the state of gaming on the Mac in order for it to work. Because the current situation just isn't tenable.

---

Well said Peter. We have, though, all the example we need in a developer out there who DOES get it and already leading the way in it being done--BLIZZARD! And I know you know that of course. But, to get EA or any other major game company out there to move to Blizzard's position, it will take Apple muscle, probably in terms of dollars.
I've beat that dead horse for too long, so I'll drop it. Apple won't do it and doesn't really care. But you have my support Peter and perhaps with the efforts of Macworld, Apple will come to their senses and realize what a lucrative market sector they've been blowing off.

[MBBuyer]

discussing gaming problems on mac os is flogging a dead horse, apple has acknowledged that gaming on a computer = gaming on windows. Apple also realised that if they wanted more market share they needed to offer a full range of games on there macs, hence you can now run windows on new macs.
whether gaming on macs is unsatisfactory or not is NOW about HARDWARE not software, and realistically that means GPU, the CPUs are plenty fast enough, and so are all the other components.
The only reasons macs arent good platform for gaming are
- integrated graphics in the mini/macbook
- lack of upgradeability in imac (and ofcourse all the laptops)
The PowerMac replacement (Mac Pro?) will be a MAD gaming machine - only question will be $ vs performance

[MacGeek1955]

Entry Level PCs run $499-$599 not $1099. I just wonder if Apple could have offered a graphics card option on the MacBook since it does replace the smaller Powerbook. While I see the need to keep prices down maybe inferior video was not the best way to go. Other than that the MacBook sounds like a fine laptop and I wouldn't mind owning one myself.

[nevrozel]

I have a dilemma: i want to buy a notebook for my sister and, besides the usual stuff, she likes playing The Sims 2. I am wondering what to choose between the entry-level MacBook and a second hand PowerBook G4 15" with Radeon 9700 with 64VRAM. The processor ranges from 1,33 - 1,67 GHZ G4. What do you think? Which one should i choose? Thank you.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

The only reasons macs arent good platform for gaming are
- integrated graphics in the mini/macbook
- lack of upgradeability in imac (and ofcourse all the laptops)

---

Uh, no.
There are a lot more reasons than that why Macs don't attract gamers and game developers. And realistically, neither of the reasons you cited stick. At all.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

I just wonder if Apple could have offered a graphics card option on the MacBook since it does replace the smaller Powerbook. While I see the need to keep prices down maybe inferior video was not the best way to go.

---

The PowerBook didn't have graphics card options either, so how exactly would this have been an improvement? Besides, the PowerBook 12-inch model's graphics were lousy -- Nvidia GeForce Go 5200.
I think the benchmarks speak for themselves: In almost every test, the MacBook simply blew not only the iBook but the 12-inch PowerBook G4 as well completely out of the water. The only ones it definitely didn't was on Photoshop, and that's because Photoshop isn't Intel-native yet, and Unreal Tournament 2004, but as we've established, the GMA 950 chip just isn't that great for gaming.
For day to day use, especially for CPU-intensive tasks like encoding MP3s, decompressing ZIP archives, encoding MPEG-2 video, rendering 3D graphics and such, the MacBook is an eminently more capable machine than the small form-factor Macs that preceded it. Lousy for OpenGL games, perhaps. But spectacular if your interests lie beyond just OpenGL performance.

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

I have a dilemma: i want to buy a notebook for my sister and, besides the usual stuff, she likes playing The Sims 2. I am wondering what to choose between the entry-level MacBook and a second hand PowerBook G4 15" with Radeon 9700 with 64VRAM. The processor ranges from 1,33 - 1,67 GHZ G4. What do you think? Which one should i choose? Thank you.

---

Those are rather narrow parameters for deciding. If The Sims 2 is the overriding factor, than she may very well be better off with a PowerBook than a MacBook. But at this point, if I was shopping for a new (to me) laptop, I'd be very hard pressed to want to get a PowerBook over a MacBook, simply because the performance benefit of the MacBook for CPU-intensive stuff is so much beyond what a PowerBook can do.