[bruine]

While I understand why you responded this way, your answer didn't bring much to the debate. The discussion that followed was much more informative. And while those questions are more extensively covered in the gaming forum, it's interesting for a more 'serious' user to have a bit of knowledge of gaming subject once in a while. I've learned something of this discussion but nothing about cheese.

[macnuke]

it wasn't a debate.
it was a subject hashed over so much anyone could have had all the answers in about 2 seconds in the Games Forum.
and cheese is usually served with whine /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
guess i should have just said.. your topic is well covered in the games forum and went to the trouble to post the links that the OP should have searched for to begin with.
high end games will never do well on a MB.
I don't know what part of it's not fiscally smart for Apple to do that isn't understood.
oh well.
have a good one.

[ianj]

Quote:

---

the MB never was designed as a game machine.
gamers want high end GPU's, CPU's and RAM.

---

Who says only gamers will play these games? All this talk about puzzle games, etc. is fine, but by my experience a casual gamer is someone who plays the same games less often than true gamers, rather than someone who plays completely different games. Maybe once a month I like to play a popular FPS or other game with moderate-to-heavy graphics demands. Am I not a casual gamer just because of the type of games I play on the rare occasions that I do?

Quote:

---

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.

---

I count this as another situation where Apple has done something that is either neutral or good for their bottom line, but harmful to customers, like refusing to sell a true Core 2 Duo desktop (meaning a tower that doesn't use laptop chips and isn't a prohibitively expensive workstation).

[Thunderchicken]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I count this as another situation where Apple has done something that is either neutral or good for their bottom line, but harmful to customers, like refusing to sell a true Core 2 Duo desktop (meaning a tower that doesn't use laptop chips and isn't a prohibitively expensive workstation).

---

The thing is Apple has filled part of its gap with the 24" iMac it has a pretty good GPU, not top of the line like what you'd find in the Mac Pro, but none the less you'll be able to play those FPS at a high frame rate. But to say that the x1600 GPU is crappy well it's not the best in the world for a laptop GPU, and you can play any game on it. You might not have 60 FPS but you should be able squeeze out low to high 20's FPS on some games and on others 40's and on up depending on the game.
Yes it would be nice if they released a smaller version of the Mac Pro, but I don't for see them putting one out because that might squash some of the Mac Pro sales and iMac sales depending on the needs of the individual. But then again what do I know I'm not Marketing Manager. One thing that I do like is the KISS method which apples seems to have down, not too many choices and not too little choice. If you have too many choices you need up confuzing people like Dell computer. They have too many and I just end up doing the pricing game to see if I get this then what else can I get and how much is it going to cost and you end up doing this many many many times and when it is al said and done you still don't know what you want. That is just my take on things.
Jeremy

[ianj]

I don't consider the 24" iMac to even come close to filling this gap. It's a $2000 desktop computer with a laptop CPU and no expandability. The issue isn't how well it plays games out of the box, but that the kind of people who are willing to spend $2,000 on a computer are probably either very wealthy, or (more likely) people who know a few things about computers and do more with them than the average user, and even average or budget users outside the Mac platform at least have the "privilege" of expandability and desktop CPUs. The iMac is an extremely limited computer for $2,000, whether you're a gamer or not, and Apple is asking a lot if they expect me to make that many compromises for such a high price. I'm not trying to attract the ire of people who actually did buy 24" iMacs, but I want to point out the reasons why a lot of people aren't interested in them, and the rest of the iMac line for that matter.
What exactly constitutes "too little choice" is a matter of opinion, but mine says Apple embodies it. While I'm not a marketing expert either, I know that expandability and being "future-ready" tend to be more highly valued traits than a built-in monitor or a small form factor among those who know a few things about computers (read: not geeks or gamers, just regular users who aren't completely clueless), and even among those who don't. I'm biased as a Mac user in the mid-end price range who uses towers, but I believe this particular lack of choice is a serious problem.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

by my experience a casual gamer is someone who plays the same games less often than true gamers, rather than someone who plays completely different games.

---

Although from a time standpoint, that makes sense, the phrase "casual gaming" generally denotes a particular genre of games. After all, whether you play hardware-demanding FPS games once a week or 20 hours a week, you still need the hardware to play them. The terms casual vs. serious gaming represent different types of games and the differing hardware they require.

[maflynn]

I missed this enjoyable thread /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
While I do agree with the OP about using the intergrated graphics the subject matter has been beaten to death.
There are lots of reasons why Apple used the GMA950. One reason that I keep thinking of is product cannibalism. What are the differences between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro? No many (other then the screen size). If apple were to use a higher end GPU then people who bought the more expensive MBP would have gone over to the MB.
Clearly apple is tyring to differentiate the two lines and one of these ways is the slower GPU. I own a MacBook and to be honest I've been happy with it but I am not a gamer in any stretch of the imagination so playing doom on the macbook isn't an issue with me.

[cyberhazard]

Definition of a Casual Game.
However, the use of the word "casual" in this manner is rather quite confessing when compared to my real world experiences.
For example, I am a casual Golfer. Does that mean that I only play Miniature Golf? Or I have no use for a good set of Ping Drivers?
No. Casual Golfer means that I only play a few times a year. But when I do play, I want to use the best course and the best equipment and play all 18 holes.
Now to the matter at hand. I am not a "casual gamer" by any definition. When I play the newest games on a computer they should look the way there meant to look in all there 3D glory and play the way there meant to play at highest frame rates possible. Should I expect a entry level, bottom of the line notebook to deliver such performance? No. Could Apple have went with a better GPU at the same price point? Maybe. Would that better GPU run hotter and kill battery life? Hum, it could. Can we second guess Apples choices all day long? Yes but why, it is what it is.
Bottom line, the MacBook is an outstanding product given the given. You can expect more, we all do. But if you want more, pony up more.

[RichL]

Quote:

---

I missed this enjoyable thread /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

I wonder how they define "Casual Sex"? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[macnuke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I missed this enjoyable thread /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

I wonder how they define "Casual Sex"? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

---

Casual sex /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Thunderchicken]

The thing with the iMac is that it was never designed to be a gaming machine where the need to "upgrade" is put on a high importance. It is intended for the average user where they may play a few games. Also the users of these machines don't need the horsepower of the Mac Pro do deal with model scaling, high-end photo editing or stuff that deals with upper-end of production. The iMac is geared toward the Beginner to low-end of the Pro to accomplish the tasks that need to be done.
Yes, all iMacs do have the Mobile Core 2 Duo but that doesn't mean they are worse then there counterparts they just consume less power and don't run as hot as the Desktop models do. In the iMac running cooler is the name of the game because it does have such a small foot print the extra heat would cause too many problems down the road.
This is just my humble oppion and you want to play those very nice FPS you have 3 options and that is: (1) to stay with the WinTel PC's where you have every option in the world to upgrade your computer when every you feel that is nessary to. (2) spend the extra money on the Mac Pro, but that doesn't mean you have to have the biggest and best but the middle of the road which is still better than what you'd find in the WinTel world far as processor and memory etc. (3) Is to having your gaming on a XBox or Playstation, this is probably one of the best option do to the fact that you never have configuration errors, and you know that it's going to work and look like it was intendend to, and almost all games are released on all 3 platforms now days.
The thing is IF and I do mean if Apple were to make such a desktop who would they market it too? What chip do they use? I do you just market toward the ones who want to change over from the WinTel machines? The reason why I don't think that Apple will make such a machine is if and when they do that they will loose the "Hey you, look at me I'm different".
Jeremy

[MacCheetah3]

Hi
While there is a mention of time: irregular in the definition of causal, the rest defines it as less serious.
So, Dan isn't completely correct but to a point. For instance, certain types of games are only meant to be played for shorter spurts of time while games like Gears of War or Halo are usually played for numerous hours on end. Correlation with this is that because it is a game style that requires substantial time and effort, the individual is much more motivated, or serious, about such.
A good example is the type of gaming one would do on a Nintendo console -- Deemed to be childish by a number of individuals, compared to that done on a PlayStation or XBOX.
In conclusion, the MacBook isn't necessarily the best for either the serious or casual gamer but is plenty sufficient for either that have interest in less graphically intense titles.

[grey_lightning]

I think the 24" iMac is probably aimed at two kinds of people: (1) Wealthy consumers who are seduced by the big screen and for whom a few hundred bucks here or there doesn't matter; and (2) Creative graphics professionals whose needs are moderate and want a capable workstation with a large display.

[Jord81]

I want to chime in again on this "casual" vs more hard-core gaming discussion.
I would assert that people who only play games as distractions, and spend most of their time playing Snood, Tetris or any of the little games bundles w/ Macs are not "casual gamers." They are not gamers at all. My experience with these people says that they actually LOOK DOWN on "gamers," assuming that more advanced games are for children and individuals with lower levels of maturity. No, I don't mean that as a sweeping generalization, but I have seen this condesencention in many forms. Mac users who spend more time trying to optimize their Mac and learn every trick than they actually work on it are playing with their own toy, but they see gaming as a lower caste pursuit.
To me, a "casual gamer" is someone who enjoys gaming. A casual gamer follows the titles that are being released, plays all the top-rated games in their genre and generally enjoys gaming on a regular basis. The distinction between casual and hard-core is the amount of time they spend playing.
A casual gamer is happy to play 5-10 hours of gaming a week. They really enjoy those hours but they keep it in moderation. A hardcore gamer plays 20+ hours a week and takes the experience far more seriously. Hardcore gamers would never buy a Mac - or if they did, it wouldn't ever be used for gaming. They interpret framerates as key to their performance (especially in FPSs) and you can get far better framerates/dollar on a PC than a Mac. The casual gamers on the other hand are happy to play at moderate framerates - but they want to experience the game the way it was intended.
So, back to the post at hand -
A casual gamer could own and love a MacBook if it had even a basic GPU. Add the option and the machine is now very attractive to this casual gaming crowd. If given the same options as are available in the iMac (7300GT or 7600GT) the Core 2 Duo MacBook would shine as a perfect balance between productivity and entertainment.
In it's current form, it is off-limits to casual gamers looking for a laptop to use as their sole PC. I regularly post this opinion on gaming forums when non-tech-inclined people post questions about running Windows games on an MB. I hesitantly tell them that if they can't shell out the extra $1000 for a MBPro, they should consider a gasp Dell w/ an extended warranty.
All of the above is my opinion, of course.