[urpwnd]

i know this article is about the macbook not being good for gaming... I have one, and it sucks for gaming. BUT, please do not call the WRX a "tricked out econobox"... haha. The WRX has always been first and foremost a performance vehicle... If you wanna call the Impreza an econobox that's fine, but the WRX (a seperate model from the Impreza) is not a POS front wheel drive economy car with a coffee can exhaust and a set of bookshelves for a wing. I love my MacBook almost as much as I love my WRX STi. =)
HOWEVER, I do hope they will give the next gen MacBook a little more graphics horsepower, or a smaller form factor MacBook Pro. I don't want a 15" (or 17"!!) laptop to lug around just to be able to run the more powerful graphics apps and games.

[shadash]

You're right - it is their line. They can do whatever they want to. But if they want to expand out of the niche 5-6%, they have to do things differently. As far as your pants analogy - what if Levis sold 28 waist pants for $25, but sold size 32 for $50? Of course, there is added material, and perhaps added labor involved, but does that justify a doubling of the cost? That is essentially what Apple is doing.

[EagerDragon]

You either like to win regardless or you do not seem to understand. You just agreed is is their line to do as tthey want, yet you are asking that they price it fair.

People do not have to buy an Apple computer, they do not have to buy one that does not fit their needs. They can buy PC(s) and also Linux systems.

Apple is a corporation that like all other corporations have a primary mandate of making the most money for the shareholders. If they decide to charge 50 for the size 32 levis, and people buy them, then they did their job.

You are presuming that they have no idea what will or will not sell, you are also presuming they want to grow at a feast rate, maybe they don't want to grow as fast as you suggest and maybe they can still grow very large doing things their way. Is your marketing and sense of business better than Apple's?

Neither I not you have inside information as to what Apple will release over the next 3 years and we do not have an idea as to how these new and unknown products will interplay with the rest of the line. So how can we say that they are a bunch of idiots that the company will not grow properly unless they do it our way?

Look you want to win, fine, you win, but maybe you should consider thinking about what I just said.

Either way you win, I am moving on.

[shadash]

I'm not trying to be "right." I'm trying to have a discussion.

I agree that people who don't like what Apple offers don't have to buy Apple computers. But I want Apple to be even more successful. I want them to grow faster and increase market share.

A Macbook with a video card in between the Pro and base lines would do wonders for their market share. This (I think) would increase shareholder value at a greater rate than the current strategy.

And I never said they're "idiots." Quit misrepresenting what I said.

[folklore]

This whole discussion highlights the strengths and weaknesses of Apple's product lines as they stand today.

On the one hand, Apple's computers aren't very configurable. Other computer manufacturers have similar case designs, but allow buyers to configure the internals of those systems. You can probably buy a Dell (for example) that has an Intel GMA chip or a discrete GPU - and have both machines look exactly the same on the outside. This configurability comes at a cost - increased product line complexity and increased manufacturing cost.

On the other hand, Apple's product lines are distinct and simple. If you want to connect to the internet, check your email, check out YouTube, FaceBook, run iLife apps, run Microsoft (or Open) Office, etc - and you want a laptop, then you're buying a Macbook. If you want to do all of that plus need a strong GPU, somewhat better specs all around, a bigger non-glossy LCD, and an expansion slot - and you want a laptop, then you're buying a MacBook Pro. Similar decisions guide desktop sales. Simple, Easy. Cheap to configure, because there aren't many options. This simplicity comes at a cost - not everyone gets precisely what they want.

We can argue about where the line between specific products is drawn, but Apple is going to continue to have a simple product line. It was one of the key changes that Jobs brought with him when he returned. It seems to be working, since Mac sales are the strongest ever in history. Part of the driving force behind those sales is how easy it is to buy a Mac.

Seriously. Walk into an Apple retail store, tell them you're looking for a computer, and the staff will start asking you what you do with your computer. Three questions in and they can identify the optimal model for you. You can't do that with a Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, etc. You just can't. Because their product lines are so darn complex. You think any non-geek knows the difference between an Intel GMA X3100 and an Nvidia 8600M? Not a chance. But they can easily answer, "Do you play a lot of complex 3D games?" If the answer is yes, then a MacBook just isn't the machine for them. Simple. Easy.

The Mac is all about the user experience. Macs just make you feel good about using a computer. And that includes the process of deciding which computer is best for you. We Mac geeks can complain all we want because this feature or that feature isn't included. But when the average Joe and Jane go to buy a computer, simplicity works. Apple's sales numbers show that quite convincingly.

[rickcarl]

Marketing should start a Back to Back Mac program. Buy a MacBook and also buy a MacBook Pro. Use the one best suited for computing needs. ;-)

[Dan Frakes]

VoxLocus said:

Goodness. So you want to edit HD video on a disc connected with Firewire 400, or one connected with eSATA?

Hey, wait... first it was FireWire 800 vs. eSATA in general; now it's FireWire 400 vs. eSATA for editing HD video? ;)

But in all seriousness, my point was just that eSATA's better performance is its only real advantage right now. It isn't widely used, and FireWire still has a number of compelling features that make it more useful for many users. (Even for editing video; for example, I don't know of any DV cameras with eSATA connections.) I do think Apple will eventually offer eSATA ports on its computers, but right now I can understand why they'd go with various flavors of FireWire instead; and those who need eSATA are likely to have a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro and, thus, have options for eSATA connectivity.

In other words, to bring this back to the main discussion, I don't think FireWire vs. eSATA is a good analogy to Apple choosing integrated graphics instead of a dedicated video card on the MacBook -- that decision, as you noted, seems to have been made mainly to differentiate the Pro and non-Pro lines.

[truthseekertruthteller]

Apples sales figures show that they are crawling for credibility. 5% in notebooks means at best 3% overall.

One solution for Apple to do is tomake some smarter choices as it relates to design and development. Apple can keep all of its industrial design dominance, upsells from MB to MBP, and offer a better gaming experience by doing the following:

1/ Become dual source on CPUs and chipsets. With AMD CPUs, you get ATI and Nvidia chipsets for "free". AMD recently launched a chipset that performs 2-3X better in games than Intel's best. Hexus TV covered it here. www.hexus.tv/show/2008/03/EXCLUSIVE[uCONTENT[/u]AMDPuma3xquickerthanIntelintegrated/]

Additionally,you get 5X more effecient BluRay video playback on the AMD versus Intel.

You can find that here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V741rSx3-5U]



2/ Offer next step graphics technology to the MBP line. Dont stop at 3600 series ATI Radeon ste up. Go to ATI Radeon 3800 series.



So we calall have our cake and eat it,too.

[Joe_M]

I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt that way...

Maybe I'm just hopelessly uncool, but I knew going in that my MacBook was not a gaming powerhouse, and I was happy enough to get a lower price and better battery life in return for that "sacrifice." Games have never been a priority of mine. Instead, I use my MacBook for more productive purposes (or pedestrian ones, depending on your point of view). If I was a gamer, I would have bought a console or a PC.

[WilfredLaurier]

There really is little incentive to dual source CPUs from AMD when AMD doesn't offer any desktop or mobile processors that are performance competitive with Intel. It wouldn't do to lose the ability to have those 2x faster processor speedup statistics between generations. AMD's mobile Griffin processor seems to largely be a K8 with better power features, which is good, but doesn't improve performance, while Barcelona, with it's 128-bit SSE units and other improvements are just coming out with the TLB fixed B3 stepping, which are focused on server Opteron parts right now, not desktop parts, and have a clock speed scaling/performance deficit against Intel CPUs. And I think Job's would want to avoid clock speed scaling issues at all costs after the G4 and G5. In any case, Apple realistically isn't that big a customer, and having to dual source may well increase prices for CPUs since you wouldn't be ordering in as large volumes anymore.

In terms of dual sourcing chipsets for Intel processor, ATI doesn't make chipsets for modern Intel processors anymore so the only option is nVidia. However, nVidia's chipsets are generally more power hungry. It's probably easier to just work with Intel when designing and optimizing a whole platform anyways rather than combining all these different parts. I'm not sure what nVidia's chipset support for EFI is anyways.

In regards to the HEXUS video, I've watched it before and I'm still not sure what they are comparing it to given that there is no G35 chipset for notebooks. The current Santa Rosa platform is based on the 965 chipset series while the upcoming Montevina platform is based on the 45 chipset series (GM45, PM45, etc). The 35 chipset looks to completely skip a mobile implementation.

Any regards to just slapping on a Radeon 3800, there are thermal considerations, and unless we get that mythical MacBook Pro redesign, we aren't going to see a high-end mobile GPU in Apple notebooks. Even then, it'll probably be limited to the 17" which means the lower volume makes it unfavourable.

[Steve_S]

drimwit said:

Peter, You're not listening to me: They. Are. Required. To. By. Law.

Drimwit,

Just curious, which law would that be? I'm not aware of any law whereby companies are forced to license proprietary code to their competition.

With that said, why would we want them to? If Mac game companies really wanted to go that route with their conversions, then I guess they'd use something like Cider, etc. as EA is doing. Apple acknowledges games as being important, but not as important to the platform as professional graphics apps. Do you see high end rendering packages using DirectX, even on Windows? They are using OpenGL for a reason. Also, everyone outside of the Microsoft environment is using OpenGL for graphics.

While I don't doubt Apple could do a better job with regad to OpenGL optimization, another poster rightfully noted that there are other considerations when comparing DirectX to OpenGL performance. That is, if the game was designed and likewise optimized for one API over another, the "port" to the other API will always be at a disadvantage. That's just the way it is.

With regard to gaming, there are things Apple can and should do. Apple's OpenGL implementation should be best in class considering how much Apple relies on it for not just games, but for the OS and for Apple's own professional applications. Apple should continue to push OpenAL and continue to work towards making the Mac best in class there as well. Finally, Apple should write an equivalent to the old Input Sprockets from OS 9 as opposed to HID manager in OS X. Input Sprocket did a much better job at handling various vendor devices and providing a common method for device calibration and button mapping, etc. In OS X, it seems that each game company has to write their own higher level API do handle this. That's unfortunate and it's something easily within Apple's control to correct.

[Steve_S]

Joe_M said:

Maybe I'm just hopelessly uncool, but I knew going in that my MacBook was not a gaming powerhouse, and I was happy enough to get a lower price and better battery life in return for that "sacrifice." Games have never been a priority of mine. Instead, I use my MacBook for more productive purposes (or pedestrian ones, depending on your point of view).

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I've been critical of Apple in the past for going with the cheap Intel graphics for lower end machines. Sure, we'd all like to have dedicated graphics chips with dedicated memory, etc. Of course, if we add all of our wish list features up, the next thing you know we'd be describing a MacBook Pro. The way I see it, Apple had to make compromises in order to make a profit with their Macbook product. Apple could have shipped cheaper CPUs and had a dedicated GPU. Maybe this would have been a more well rounded system, but instead, Apple's "compromise" benefits a much larger audience. That larger audience is the non-gaming market. This may be a shock to Peter and the likes, but most people don't do much gaming on their computers. Further, as bad as the Macbooks are for hard core gaming, they are perfectly fine for pretty much everything else including most "casual" gaming.

However, to Peter's point, if there are driver specific issues with the Intel graphics that are indeed specific to Apple, then this should be addressed immediately.

With that said, I am in the market for a new laptop and will purchase a Macbook Pro for a variety of reasons - one of which is the ability to play games.

[Bill501]

If your serious about gaming get a MacBook Pro or better yet a Mac Pro with which ever video card is best for your needs.

[vulpine]

I can't argue the article myself, but why limit it to just the low-end MacBooks? Why is it so hard to make the iMac and MacBooks compatible with higher-end graphics chips or even capable of adding upgrade graphics cards?
As far as that goes, I play World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade on one of the first aluminum iMac Extreme models and consistently get between 70 and 90 fps while my wife, using an identical machine claims to be lucky to get 30fps. As far as I can tell, the only difference in how we play is that she tends to use 'Windowed' mode so she can browse different playing guides and research quests during gameplay.
However, the comments about game developers having to 'downgrade' graphics seem to be very realistic. I don't want to have to buy a new computer just because new games require more graphics power. As far as I know, Apple can't or won't even consider upgrading graphics in an iMac or MacBook, instead wanting you to buy a new machine instead.
Hey, Apple! Make the machine a little more Game Friendly, will ya?