[Peter Cohen]

We can go around all night with this, whatever.

Apple has invested a decade in developing OpenGL and made it a cornerstone of their operating system. They're not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater and replace it with Microsoft's technology. I am as certain of this as I am that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

I'll eat my hat if it's otherwise. But I won't. Because it won't happen. Period.

[drimwit]

You mean like they invested in PowerPC, then ditched it? I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying that Apple is in a position to, and if it thought the gaming market was important, which it obviously doesn't, then it could do it.

[trip1ex]

Actually the problem of integrated graphics isn't unique to Apple's laptops. It's a beef game developers have with Windows pcs too.
Most laptops and desktops sold in the store today don't have dedicated graphics. It's a bit ironic that Best Buy sells pc games, but doesn't sell pcs that can play the games (at least for the most part.)
Anyway yeah it would be great if the Macbook had a better gpu. I mean how about the old x1600 from ATI? Even if they stayed a generation behind what's in the MBP it would still be miles ahead of integrated graphics.
Maybe if graphics move to cpus then we won't have to worry about graphics card anymore. Some folks think that might happen as we cpus with more and more cores and Intel starts putting more and more graphical functions into their cpus (btw, ATI and Nvidia and trying to make their gpus do cpu tasks too.)

[trip1ex]

Oh and btw, does WoW run alot better on x3100 under Bootcamp than in OS/X?

[Agnitio]

I do agree it sucks. There's not much else around it. I don't expect Apple to get any better at it, but I do really think that Apple should realize the potential of gaming on the Mac and help to drive it. Although I don't think that it's going to happen, it could help if gaming on the iPhone does well.
The only other thing I can hope for is that intel is pushed a bit by AMD/ATI to better their integrated GPU (ATI has done so recently I believe, although I don't remember the specific article) and will go on to make their integrated GPU better.

[dmdzine]

In regards to Aperture 2 on a MacBook, I'm running it on the previous generation system with the old GMA 950 graphics. The performance is actually quite decent, with the only noticeable lag being in the transition from windowed mode to full screen (at least as far as I've seen). I'd assume the performance is even better with the newer X3100 graphics on board.

[dmdzine]

I'd also like to point out that the OpenGL based Quartz system which is all over Aqua, is WAY more efficient (in my experience) than the DirectX based system powering Aero. Vista's new interface requires a ridiculous amount of gfx power just to display the same amount or fancy/extraneous interface elements that run extremely smoothly on a 64mb integrated graphics setup with OS X. Perhaps Apple is more concerned with providing a smooth interface with minimal requirements than they are with providing a top of the line gaming system.

[truthseekertruthteller]

This is a relatively new phenomenon for the Mac community, but an old one for Windows world. Intel ships the lowest quality intgrated graphics on the market. It costs no more to get an integrated chipset from ATI or Nvidia. The problem is, Intel doesn't want to allow Apple to do this and Apple doesnt care enough about its users to demand this from Intel. Here are some interesting articles supporting this.



BusinessWeek: www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07[u33/b4046022.htm] Basically shows that Intel cannot even play the [/u]Sims 2_ correctly.

YouTube showing Intel's game peformance: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd0Of4PnpQk] This shows that even on Intel's latest G33, it cannot play recent games correctly.

Mac users,welcome to the wonderful world of Intel grapics! Stay away and demand action from Apple. Apple has a choice and it wouldn't cost them a nickel more.

[Peter Cohen]

dmdzine said:

Perhaps Apple is more concerned with providing a smooth interface with minimal requirements than they are with providing a top of the line gaming system.

There's certainly some truth to this. But as I said in the blog, I'm not looking for the MacBook to become a top of the line gaming system -- I'd settle for "adequate," which it isn't.

[VoxLocus]

Q: I don't play games, so why do I care if the MacBook plays games well?
A: We use Macs at work. The more Macs there are, the more useful software, not just game software, there is likely to be for Macs. I just read in the business press that doctors are increasingly using 3-D gaming technology to view CAT scans etc. So, there you go.
Now Apple has unfortunately decided to parse the market in ways which are, to my mind, somewhat shortsighted. Firewire 800 is ok, but eSATA is better. Firewire 800 is available on the MBP, eSATA with an Express Card on the MBP (& also on the Pro Desktop). What would it cost to put an Express Card in the consumer lines, i.e., MacBook & iMac? Not much, except in sales of higher end models.
Now thinking outside the box, is there any possibility Firewire 400 on the MacBook could feed an external video card? Not as good as the motherboard solution, but since USB is good enough to feed HDTV in, surely Firewire could feed games out? Just a thought for you geeks needing to make millions.

[truthseekertruthteller]

Totally agree that "gamers" should use dedicated graphics, but "casual gaming" is on fire. "Casual gaming" being defined as not being the primary usage model, but stuff like the Sims. And there are choices that Apple doesnt embrace like the AMD RS780 integrated graphics chipset that will even play the highest level games and cost Apple not even a cent more.

I am new to this forum but would like to know why Apple doesnt care? In addition to my Windows PCs,I have the latest iMac and MacBook Air.

[BradPDX]

I still cannot believe that grown people care about games on a computer. Where does one find the time to waste?
This seems way off track to me - games should be left to consoles for those who want them. General purpose computing devices with QWERTY keyboard are just not optimized for that. I'd leave it alone.
Computing is fun in other ways, but no games for me, thanks.

[Peter Cohen]

"Casual gaming" is something of a misnomer when it comes to games like The Sims. True that it doesn't hit the same "hardcore" demographic as a game like Unreal Tournament, but The Sims 2, for example, has very steep system requirements. Just because it's been designed to appeal to a mainstream audience doesn't mean it doesn't push the envelope when it comes to graphics performance -- just a thought.

[truthseekertruthteller]

It's a good thought. I guess what I am puzzled about is why can't Intel integrated graphics in 2008 play a game that was released in 2004? To boot, integrated graphics (not even discrete) from ATI and Nvidia can play it well. Is it Apple's decision or Intel forcing Apple to use their chpsets? Finally, if it were just the Sims, it would be one thing, but as Intel's own support website shows, they have many, many issues with game compatibility. By the way, here is what BusinessWeek means by sub-standard Intel graphics.

Sims on Intel integrated graphics with Intel Core 2 processor:



Sims on ATI integrated graphics and AMD processor: