[Jord81]

Once again - Intel GMA 950?
Doesn't Apple realize the portion of it's potential market share (in the mid-priced laptop segment) that is in the high-school/college age group? Furthermore, do they realize how many young people pass up on the MacBook because it has no graphics chip?
I am not suggesting that MacBooks need high end graphics cards nor that the majority of people are going to try to play hardcore games on a MacBook. I am suggesting that a good percentage of this young demographic would like the flexibility to play current games half-decently when they get bored on the road. For many, a laptop is going to be their sole computer, and the fact that the MacBook is not even close to satisfactory for gaming is a real turn-off.
It wouldn't take an expensive graphics chip. The difference in quality and performance between an Intel GMA 950 chip and a very low end Radeon x300 chip is huge. It adds hardware rendering that would make a huge difference. At the moment, the MacBook scores "unplayable" on most current games, even basic ones. Adding a very low end chip as I suggested would nudge it into the realm of "playable" or "satisfactory" -
... and all from a chip that RETAILS on a graphics card for $55. Figure in whatever tiny sum the Intel GMA chip costs and the wholesale nature of machine manufacturing and the difference is negligible. At least make it an option ... I'd check the $50 box - and moreover I would actually order one.

[macnuke]

can i get some cheese with that? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jord81]

Quote:

---

can i get some cheese with that? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

---

You sound like you belong on the World of Warcraft general public forums. I think the best response would be "cry harder."
Seriously. Feel free to disagree w/ my point, but don't troll. Thanks.

[macnuke]

yer welcome.
yer gnu around these parts eh? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Jord81]

Quote:

---

yer welcome.
yer gnu around these parts eh? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

---

I suppose I am.
I would hope that someone w/ 5000 posts would have some insight to add to my thread, positive or negative. But I guess the easiest, most mindless way to get 5000 posts on a forum is to post responses like those above?
Eh.

[macnuke]

it would be alot easier than you doing your homework.
load the RAM in your MB.. it will actually handle all the "casual" games just fine.
and while you are doing your homework, look the the Game Room forum down below. there are plenty reviews by both staff and by users that play all the games for Mac. and the MB holds it's own for many games.
so while you post a topic that says Apple snubs casual gamers, you only show your lack of knowledge of your topic and to be honest, your topic looks more trollish than anything i have said.

[DarthMac]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

yer welcome.
yer gnu around these parts eh? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

---

I suppose I am.
I would hope that someone w/ 5000 posts would have some insight to add to my thread, positive or negative. But I guess the easiest, most mindless way to get 5000 posts on a forum is to post responses like those above?
Eh.

---

I'm with macnuke, you're the one raising a subject that has been beaten to death and buried months ago.

[MCJ]

I think that Apple's response would be that the MacBook is selling very nicely thank you without a separate graphics chip.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

Doesn't Apple realize the portion of it's potential market share (in the mid-priced laptop segment) that is in the high-school/college age group? Furthermore, do they realize how many young people pass up on the MacBook because it has no graphics chip?

---

I think it would be nice to have the option, but...it's probably really hard for anybody to realize how many people are passing up the MacBook when it's such a runaway hit. It would be easier to argue this if the MacBook was failing, but with Apple racking up the highest sales of all time, led by the MacBook, if there are a few game geeks who feel put out by the MacBook it's pretty clear that their impact on sales is somewhere close to imperceptible at this point. And a certain percentage of the MacBook rejecters went for the MacBook Pro to get their graphics card, so Apple still got their money. Whoever is left over, isn't impacting sales noticably.

[Jord81]

Quote:

---

it would be alot easier than you doing your homework.
load the RAM in your MB.. it will actually handle all the "casual" games just fine.
and while you are doing your homework, look the the Game Room forum down below. there are plenty reviews by both staff and by users that play all the games for Mac. and the MB holds it's own for many games.
so while you post a topic that says Apple snubs casual gamers, you only show your lack of knowledge of your topic and to be honest, your topic looks more trollish than anything i have said.

---

I've played CoD2 and WoW on a 2.16GHz MB. I don't think YOU have the first clue about how games are supposed to look but Intel GMA lacks most key hardware rendering and hence games look awful. AWFUL. They play poorly (10-12 FPS w/ both games, 15 FPS w/ Unreal Tournament) even w/ 2 gigs of RAM and the CPU set for max performance w/ nothing running in the background.
But go ahead - snub new posters with opinions and try to discredit their points and call them ignorant when you are in fact wrong (although I guess performance is subjective and some consider 10 FPS "playable").
That's a great way to grow a community.

[griffman]

I don't agree with the initial harsh responses to your post, but the truth is, we do discuss this stuff here regularly, and a brief search on the Games forum would have found many threads covering the issue.
I think the bigger problem is that you have a different definition of "Casual Gamer" than do I, Apple, or the others who have posted here. A casual gamer is not someone who runs CoD2 and WoW only "occasionally." A casual gamer is one who plays the genre of casual games, which include things like Professor Fizzwizzle, Super Collapse, Bejeweled, etc.
As proof that this is how Apple defines the term, consider this page on Apple's site. It's all about gaming, and has a whole section on "casual gaming." The MacBook is the recommended on-the-go casual gaming machine. But check the list of suggested games: not a single 3D FPS entry to be found. For 3D games on a mobile platform, the MacBook Pro is the recommended platform.
In short, you probably would've seen a much different response if you hadn't chosen to label the post with the term "casual gamer." By Apple's definition, nobody playing a 3D shooter is a casual gamer, and those games are not targeted at the MacBook.
Why not? Because Apple needs to keep some performance distinction between the low end and high end portables. They already use the same chip. They have similar screens. So for your extra bucks, you get a better video card, bigger screen, thinner, etc.
I think the entry-level portables will always be best for running casual games, or 3D FPS games that are a couple of generations old (Quake3 runs fine on the MacBook, for instance).
-rob.

[Jord81]

Thank you for your response, Rob.
You make a good point - there are a lot of distractions (aka games) out there, mostly puzzle-type games, that don't need 3d rendering.
I guess that I define a casual gamer by the amount of time they spend playing games rather than the games they choose. Someone who plays games 2-10 hours a week is a casual gamer to me.
The fact that the MB can boot up and is capable of playing Windows games makes it a great shame. There is a huge library of games spanning every genre that would be playable w/ a $30-50 graphics chip but are virtually unplayable on an Intel GMA chip.
Oh well. It doesn't sound like many people agree with me. I guess if Snood or Tetris is a casual game, the MB does a fine job of playing them ...

[ianj]

Quote:

---

Thank you for your response, Rob.
You make a good point - there are a lot of distractions (aka games) out there, mostly puzzle-type games, that don't need 3d rendering.
I guess that I define a casual gamer by the amount of time they spend playing games rather than the games they choose. Someone who plays games 2-10 hours a week is a casual gamer to me.
The fact that the MB can boot up and is capable of playing Windows games makes it a great shame. There is a huge library of games spanning every genre that would be playable w/ a $30-50 graphics chip but are virtually unplayable on an Intel GMA chip.
Oh well. It doesn't sound like many people agree with me. I guess if Snood or Tetris is a casual game, the MB does a fine job of playing them ...

---

I agree with you. I don't play games very often, but when I do, it's a more well-known game like the Civilization series or something by Blizzard. I'll even play a shooter every now and then. I never heard of any of the games being suggested for the MacBook before, and I don't know anybody else who does, either. On the other hand, I do know a lot of "casual gamers" who want to play one of the popular games every now and then. Even outside of gaming, the graphics card has uses, such as not eating into your system RAM. That's not the only reason why I got a MacBook Pro instead, but it played a large part. The fact that me and an unknown number of other people are going upmarket to get features we want looks good for Apple's business, unless a larger number of potential MacBook customers are buying from another brand instead.

[macnuke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

it would be alot easier than you doing your homework.
load the RAM in your MB.. it will actually handle all the "casual" games just fine.
and while you are doing your homework, look the the Game Room forum down below. there are plenty reviews by both staff and by users that play all the games for Mac. and the MB holds it's own for many games.
so while you post a topic that says Apple snubs casual gamers, you only show your lack of knowledge of your topic and to be honest, your topic looks more trollish than anything i have said.

---

I've played CoD2 and WoW on a 2.16GHz MB. I don't think YOU have the first clue about how games are supposed to look but Intel GMA lacks most key hardware rendering and hence games look awful. AWFUL. They play poorly (10-12 FPS w/ both games, 15 FPS w/ Unreal Tournament) even w/ 2 gigs of RAM and the CPU set for max performance w/ nothing running in the background.
But go ahead - snub new posters with opinions and try to discredit their points and call them ignorant when you are in fact wrong (although I guess performance is subjective and some consider 10 FPS "playable").
That's a great way to grow a community.

---

for the record..
I play both games.
I am less than a "casual gamer" now a days.
I refer to "casual gamer" using Rob's definition.
I play pretty rarely nowadays.
but they do run fine on my old 1.8G DP G5 w/X800XT card in it.
so yeah, I know what they are supposed to look like.
the MB never was designed as a game machine.
gamers want high end GPU's, CPU's and RAM.
anything else the box does is just gravy.
I also have a child who is an online killer. trust me, I know.
so it really was in the context of "the MB will never be a game machine" that I gave you the answer I did.
my read on your post was you didn't do your homework and were whining.
you aren't alone. many many people on this and other forums whine about the ig in the MB.
I also feel a read of the game room you would have had all your answers.
so in context, Apple really didn't snub the casual gamer.
they snubbed the GPU intensive games in the MB.
and produced the most popular model laptop in their history at the same time.