[techwild2008]

My thoughts exactly. There's probably some legal ballet playing out here.

Yet, if Apple was to choose a different chipset, there would likely be some questions to tackle. For instance, could the new implementation support the present EFI or UEFI framework? Many clone setups still run the "old" AT BIOS. What about design modifications needed to reduce heat output? During the 1G MacBook era, Apple had been accused of willfully underclocking the ATI X1600's by members of its own forums; at the same time, speculation persisted that the underclocking was done to improve thermal control. What would be the net impact of adding yet more kernel drivers to make way for a new architecture?

So many questions, so few answers from Apple.

[Peter Cohen]

I have doubts that it's a contractual issue. More likely, Apple wants to remain as platform-neutral as they can. Apple likes to make AMD and Nvidia compete for business when it comes to products that feature discrete graphics processors like the MacBook Pro, Mac Pro and most iMacs. If Apple favored one or the other for an integrated graphics processor/motherboard design then it'd put that company at a distinct advantage for future designs with that motherboard, and it might reduce Apple's negotiating position with the competitor.

This might be another reason why getting the MacBook (and, by extension, Mac mini) away from integrated graphics and into a discrete processor might be a better solution in some respect; it'd be modular enough that Apple could swap out the part with a competitor's as the need arises.

And it's not like this concept is unprecedented in the Mac world. Up until the Intel switch, Apple's consumer-grade hardware regularly had discrete (albeit underpowered) processors. iBooks and pre-Intel iMacs all had graphics processors on board.

[techwild2008]

With all due respect, Mr. Cohen, your platform-neutrality logic has at least one hole in it, but you do make some solid points.

You call two product lines with over 70% Intel guts "neutral"? Hardly, I'd say.

Yes, Apple did put some decent graphics in the older consumer models. If I remember right, they flopped back and forth more on the pro models, but with the iBook and the PPC mini. most had ATI. Favoritism? Don't know, but it almost looks that way.

One thing's certain here: Those of us who enjoy a game or two on the PC (using the term in a very broad sense) would love nothing more than for our vendors of choice to offer low-cost models with discrete graphics. Forget about APIs and all the techie jazz fir a second. We want good games to kill time with; we want them to look good; and we want machines that have the capacity to play these games. For me at least, gaming performance was a deciding factor when I jumped from Windows to Mac and chose a MacBook Pro over a MacBook.

My name's Nate. I do retro emulation, and I do it on a Mac (with Windows, too).

[truthseekertruthteller]

Good comment. I think the problem may be that they are stuck single source with Intel processors and with that comes their integrated graphics chipsets. Intel really owns Apple, but hey, it seems to be working out for Apple so far. If Apple would open themselves up to AMD processors, then ATI and Nvidia integrated chipsets would come along with it. I have worked with Intel, and it's kinda like getting involved with the mob when you first start with Intel. You can get in, but you can't get out.

When the honeymoon is over between Apple and Intel, it will get ugly for Apple. Look at what Intel did when HP and Dell went with AMD. Ugly!

I looked up some reviews for ATI/AMD chipsets and processors and Tom's Hardware Guide had this to say........"The 780G chipset holds the new record for the lowest power consumption." "Rival Intel is put to shame by AMD's chipset in every single one of these categories."

[lenn]

If Apple won't put GPUs in the iMacs that are at least the current mid-level then I doubt they will improve on the GPUs in the MBs.

[John_Scott]

Again, Steve Jobs is to blame for the lack of Apple computers supporting games. He himself admits that he does not like gaming. We all know that its Steve's world and what Steve wants Steve gets. Apple is SO much a cult its pathetic! You would think a $1000 laptop could have a dedicated graphics card. because after all the PC laptops would certainly have some options at that price! But then again its Apple. Apple's concern to make a higher profit on each computer because it only has 5% or less of the computer market really says a lot on how Apple feels. I think the MacBook Air is a perfect example of how Apple creates on elegance first and logic second. Sure its a great looking thin laptop. But it sacrafices so much in the process. To expect user's to buy a $2000 laptop or $1300 for a iMac to play games is doing Mac gaming so wrong. How can Apple ever expect gaming software companies to ever consider Mac's as true marketing avenues when so much of the hardware that makes up much of Apple's sales cannot play games? I just cannot believe how much Mac user's give up in order to say they are Mac Fans! I am certainly not one!

[shadash]

Apple won't put discrete graphics cards in their consumer laptops because that would cannibalize their MacBook Pro sales, especially to professionals. Why sell a $1200 computer when you can sell a $2000 one? Also, Steve Jobs has amply demonstrated over the years that he just doesn't care about games. Carmack's comments recently just confirm what we all know.

[folklore]

Mac users sacrifice so much: viruses, spyware, frequent crashes, bad upgrade implementation, a downright ugly UI that has far too much overhead, activation hassles when we change the video card or RAM, poor industrial design, and an overpriced OS.

Oh. And a few games that probably play better on a console anyway.

I usually don't feed the trolls, but that one was too hard to resist.

On a serious note, it does seem that either game developers aren't used to OpenGL, or it's an inferior platform to DX. I really don't know which, but that OpenGL v. DX thing does seem to be the sticky point for Mac gaming. From what I've heard, cross-platform games such as WoW play better on Windows, even if the hardware is a Mac. Exactly why that's the case, I don't know.

[Jayzchang]

well I have a the GMA 950 and Aperture 2 runs just fine.

it loads pretty darn fast. ( I only have one gig, tho planning on getting 2 in the near future)

[drjuice]

I guess my question on the Mac as a serious gaming platform is this: Is Apple really losing ground - or not gaining more - by not being big into games? Honestly, I'm not so sure. The people that I know that are big into PC games also build their own machines, or upgrade some piece of their system every six months, or have at least one console.

So, if Apple did license DirectX (which, legal-obligation-to-license-or-not, would be expensive, and I doubt Apple wants to be any more beholden to Microsoft than they may already be), what then? Does marketshare sky rocket? Probably not. Do game developers flock en masse to the Mac platform? Maybe.

Point is, we're geeks. And, more importantly, Mac geeks. Which means we as a community can be a little...anal, at times. Apple changes the Dock for Leopard and you'd think that Steve Jobs personally went around punching people's grandmothers in their kidneys. But the bigger market, the people who answer the question "Why do you want to switch?" with "Because I have a Dell" and you both know exactly what that means, do they really care? I honestly don't know. When I bought my 17" PowerBook 4 years ago, I picked up Halo, UT2004, and Age of Mythology. None of those programs have been on my hard drive, let alone opened, in at least a year and a half. (For what it's worth, Aperture 2 seems to run fine, though I don't own any other hardware for comparison, and have no use for it at all).

Apple is beholden to few people, sometimes it seems like they aren't even beholden to us - and I think they like it that way (and, perhaps perversely, maybe we do too, we're all still here, right?). Anything that increases the number of people who could potentially throw a monkey wrench in future plans is not something Apple wants to pursue unless the potential gains outweigh the risk (see: licensing ActiveSync). You could argue that licensing DirectX doesn't pose any risk, after all, they already license stuff from Microsoft, right? But DirectX doesn't matter to the general public the way having a native version of Office does, nor do I think it matters to a lot of gamers the way full-blown Exchange support matters to enterprise users.

So, should the MacBook be made better for gaming? I think it should get a graphics bump, but then I also wonder what happens to the Pro line. Frankly, I think there's a bit too much overlap between the two lines now - is larger screen, aluminum case, and dedicated video card really worth $600? I bought a PowerBook thinking I'd need the highest end, and 4 years later I can say that I didn't need it then and I don't need it now. I was debating between MacBook or Pro, and I think I'm going with the MacBook (worse still, the black one). Honestly, I might even be able to get away with an Air, but then I figure for another $200 I get arguably twice as much computer with the Pro. In the end, I'm wondering just how much demand there really is for the Mac as a gaming platform.

[shadash]

drjuice,

Don't - repeat - do not get a Macbook. Go to youtube and type in Macbook flicker and see what you're getting first. I had a Macbook and had that problem and got rid of it. Now I'm back to using my old G4 Powerbook. The reason you need to go with the MacBook pro is b/c you know you're getting a quality machine. Esp if you're getting a black Macbook - its only a few hundred more dollars for a MacBook pro.

[drjuice]

I've seen a lot of MacBooks and I have yet to see this in the real world, but thanks for the heads up.

That "few hundred more dollars," however, ain't exactly peanuts, even compared to the difference between the white and black MacBooks. That being said, I'm still going back and forth, but I'm leaning towards the MacBook.

[Dan Frakes]

VoxLocus said:

Firewire 800 is ok, but eSATA is better.

A better way to put it is that each has advantages. Although a native eSATA drive is indeed faster than a FireWire drive, eSATA (like USB, IDE, and SATA) requires a host computer; FireWire is a peer-to-peer technology. Similarly, current eSATA drives require a separate power connection; FireWire provides enough power for many devices to function without a separate power connection.

Sorry for the off-topic comment; just wanted to correct that over-generalization.

[EagerDragon]

I am sorry, but you are complaining about a hammer that can not be used as a jackhammer.

The MB was not designed to do gaming, for gaming you should either use a MBP or some other PC with a dedicated video card.

Even if Apple drivers were the best, it will still lag way behind a computer with a dedicated video card.

Sorry wrong tool and wishing that will not come true. Apple offers a very nice option in the MBP. Buy one.

Apple has no incentive to develop better drivers for this chip set, they want you to buy the MBP.