[jeffharris]

There's a $900 difference low-end to low-end. $1099 to $1999.
It's better to compare the TOP of the line MacBook @ $1499 to the LOW-end MacBook Pro for $1999.

That's only a $500 difference.

But still, you're trying to compare the low-end consumer machine loaded with compromises to keep the price down vs. a Pro machine with Pro features that's also billed as a desktop replacement.

I wanted high-end and paid for it. Plus, the faster processor, 256MB VRAM, maxxed the RAM to 4GB and added a 7200rpm hard drive. I drive a second 1920x1200 pixel monitor. My external drives use FireWire 800. I use ExpressCard 34 CompactFlash and SD card readers, too.

So, don't complain about a low-end machine not having the horsepower to do what a top-of-the-line machine will do. Bite the bullet and buy the better machine. But I do agree that the MacBook has a crappy video card. It SHOULD be dedicated and not steal from the system's RAM.

[imagineengine]

Options I would like to see in both Macbook and Macbook Pro.

Macbook:
1. Intel Core 2 Duo.
2. Option for Blue-Ray RW drive.
3. Minimum 2 GB RAM but option to expand to 4 GB RAM.
4. Minimum 160 GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive.
5. Option for either Geforce 8400M or Geforce 8600M.

Macbook Pro:
1. Option for Intel Core 2 Quad processor.
2. Blue-Ray RW drive.
3. Option to expand to 8 GB RAM.
4. Minimum 250 GB 7200 RPM SATA hard drive.
5. Option for either Dual SLI graphics NVIDIA Geforce 8800M or dual SLI NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M.

[Pennywigeon]

One is an economy model the other a more professional model. Buy the one that offers the abilities needed. Better graphics card = higher price which would make the economy models not economy but premium.

Quads in a laptop would lead to heat issues unless a redesign is done.

Blue ray is still expensive and would raise the price. Patience will lead to Blue Ray adoption.




I would like a car that gets 250 MPG is 400 horsepower, uses water as fuel and costs $4995 but that sounds unrealistic doesn't it?

[Pennywigeon]

Microsoft will license DIrect X to Apple when Apple licenses Fair Play to Microsoft.

Neither will happen.

OpenGL is the direction Apple among many others has taken.



Remember Apple is a Production Platform (Pre press, video, audio, science, etc) before it is a gaming platform.
People don't buy Macs to play games. They buy them mainly for Production needs.

Games are just a sideline for entertainment. A sideline the consoles are made for.

[EagerDragon]

Hey at that price that car should have an iPod docking station and interface via bluetooth.
LOL

I know what you mean.
There are a lot of people here that should just go out and get an Area 51 laptop and stop whining.

If their primary interest is gaming, they should purchase a system that meets their needs, if on the other hand they just want a system for getting at the web and writing school assignments then they should get a low level Mac.

You can not have everything in a 1000 dollar Mac, and even the Mac Pro when it comes to gaming it is not in the same league of a system designed for gaming.

There are always all those consoles!!!!!!!!

[trip1ex]

This is the frustrating part about Apple. The part where your needs and wants fall in between their product lines/models.

In this case the $1300 MB vs the $2000 MBP.

I suppose though that one way to cure that is to just grab a used or refurb MBP.

[EagerDragon]

Apple unlike other computer makers, only makes a very modest set of computers. Each is targeted at a particular use and population. This is on purpose, they do not want to maintain a lot of different combinations.

Unlike the PC world, where computers comes in different heights, width, flavors, and colors (LOL), with a choice of 12 video cards and 12 disk sizes, 3 sounds cards, 7 ethernet cards, you name it.

I am sorry to say that the choices are limited and they do help alleviate confusion. The Mac Mini and the MB are both for the person with a small budget that just want a simple and easy to use system and for Switchers that do not want a big bill to just try the Apple legacy before they jump with 2 feed.

I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet that a lot of the people that are asking for the MB and mini to become better at gaming fall into to categories or both categories at the same time:
1) People with too much time in their hands that need to game to keep busy
2) Switchers that are used to playing games and miss it once they switch.

Life is complex and there are a lot of things that we all should be doing. For the most part, gaming just waste our time. There are plenty of console systems and then there are PC(s), for those that have to have gaming.

Buy what you need, if not available, then move to a different brand or model.

[imagineengine]

FYI: I use my current Macbook Pro both for highend animation/visual effects work as well as for gaming. The specs I listed would be possible based on several reasons. For example there are competitor laptops currently available in the market with SLI graphics so it is possible for Apple to include this in a Macbook. The pricing for these SLI GPU models are similar to current pricing that Apple places on consumers for purchasing the Macbook Pro. The "Pro" line isn't really targeting gamers but is suited for gamers due to offering a larger display screen, higher resolution display and better graphics GPU compared to the low end Macbook model. The Intel Core 2 Quad 45 nanometer CPU for laptops is currently being designed by Intel for release sometime later this year. While not really intended for gamers it will benefit game designers as well as 3D/2D artists such as myself and those working in broadcast television who use Final Cut Studio. I agree that cost is a concern not only for Apple but also for consumers regarding Blue-Ray RW drives in the Macbook but the reality is all the major film and television studios have dropped support for HD-DVD and are focusing solely on backing Blue-Ray. So including this as an "option" as I stated when customers are selecting the configuration of their Macbook would be great and fall in line with competitors such as Dell that currently offer this as an option. As for your attempt to compare a car analogy to the Macbook it's not the same market or even product. It would be better to compare the Macbook options currently available to what Dell offers their customers on the XPS laptop line or even with Alienware who targets both regular Joe/Jane laptop users as well as gamers and highend 3D/2D artists such as myself. I'm not trying to bash Apple as I do truly enjoy both Apple products such as the MBP as well as their customer service. What I'm trying to do is point out that it is possible for Apple to compete in the global laptop market by offering their customers more options when configuring a laptop to suit a customers needs, not what Apple thinks we want.

[EagerDragon]

WHile everything you said is probably true, Dell basically sells for something like 4% over cost, Apple sells somewhere between 23% to 35% over cost. So an Apple computer is likely to cost a little more. Yes, Apple could try to compete in the cut throat market, but Apple will not do that, that is not their market.

The big differential here is Apple sells OSX systems and they are well integrated. I left the windows world a long time ago and I am not going back no mater how much better the value.

[folklore]

imagineengine said:

What I'm trying to do is point out that it is possible for Apple to compete in the global laptop market by offering their customers more options when configuring a laptop to suit a customers needs, not what Apple thinks we want.

Apple laptops do compete in the global laptop market. And they compete well. Take a look at recent sales numbers. Apple's Macbook is selling well, GMA graphics be damned.

And, as I've already posted in this thread, I'll take the simplicity of Apple's lineup over the ridiculously complicated Dell lineup any day. More importantly, Joe and Jane Consumer can very easily and very quickly determine which Mac is right for them. That's a huge selling point, and one that's often missed by folks that want Apple to offer an infinite number of configurations.

Finally, as was pointed out in the original story, there are likely things that Apple can do in the software to optimize performance of the existing hardware.

[jeffharris]

EagerDragon said:

While everything you said is probably true, Dell basically sells for something like 4% over cost, Apple sells somewhere between 23% to 35% over cost. So an Apple computer is likely to cost a little more. Yes, Apple could try to compete in the cut throat market, but Apple will not do that, that is not their market.

The big differential here is Apple sells OSX systems and they are well integrated.

Apple sells a high quality of functionality and a complete user experience. Everything is designed to work together as seamlessly as possible.

Another difference between Apples and Dell (and other generic box stuffers) is that Macs include EVERY port and feature you're likely to need. Like Ford or Chevy, Dell charges extra for every little add-on. Their bottom of the line stripped out boxes are barely functional until you add on everything you need? and pray all the drivers will work together.

With a Mac, it doesn't cost extra for FireWire, or ethernet or wireless or dual monitor support? it's ALL built-in. With the MacBook Pros, you get even more; higher screen resolution, better video with more VRAM, FireWire 800, ExpressCard 3/4, etc.. Aside from adding RAM and a larger hard drive, there's really very little to upgrade because it's all right there, out of the box.

[Originalme8]

These options are really great, for Mac Pro or even an iMac. However, for a laptop they seem a little extreme. The price would be even more outrageous for many of those upgrades at this point in time, and the quad core proc. idea is really good, except for the fact that the power usage would be huge. It just doesn't make sense in an apple laptop yet. Apple puts a lot of thought into their designs they never go to the extreme on any of their laptops and I like that. In terms of the MacBook series, however, I agree and would like to see a little improvement on their GPU choice.

[Pennywigeon]

Apple does not like to have 37 different models (ie Dell) because it confuses the customer.

Dell and ALienware are both Box makers. All they do is assemble parts hence their wide variety of options. Apple designs the whole thing (software and hardware) so its more like an Appliance.

Tell me how many versions of the Xbox are there?
How many of the Playstation 3?
How many of the Wii

Do you see where that is heading? Usually an "Appliacne" maker will make a few models

Economy, Midrange, Premium.

Apple does the same. YOu have three models of the Macbook and three models of the MBP. Each have a few build to order options.

Blue ray will become an option ONCE it is adopted more as mainstream and the prices come down but a majority of the Apple users currently will not pay for that option.

You can always buy an external Firewire/USB hardware device if it doesn't come standard on a machine. (upgradability and hardware options via external)

Serious games don't play on laptops either. They play on high end, dedicated machines.

Laptops offer the luxury of mobility with a trade off in performance and cost.

ANyone doing any heavy production does not want to do it on a Lap Top but rather a higher performance Desktop.


Enter the Mac Pro Dual Quad.................

The macbook is plenty for what it is and at its price. THe problem is people are cheap.


It is the fast food generation. "I want it my way right away" mentality that in reality is not going to happen.

I mean I would like a Mack Book Pro to have a 30" screen, Quad Quad processors, 4 slaved Video cards with dual Blue ray burners, an internal 2TB raid system, FW 3200, A Directv satellite receiver, 16 Channel audio inputs, HDMI, a battery that lasts 2 days, and a holographic keyboard.

Oh and a built in 11x17 Color printer that can do 50 ppm and duplex.

That would fit my needs just nicely and I think it is totally absurd that I can't order a macbook with those options.

[macme72]

If Apple truly is serious about getting game developers to take the Mac platform seriously, they really need to put 128MB of dedicated graphics power into the Macs that the vast majority of teens, college students, 20-somethings and families purchase: the MacBook and (to a somewhat lesser degree) the iMac. Apple is already half-way there with the option for a souped-up graphic card for the iMac. They cannot be worried about cannibalizing MBP sales now that 256MB is the base for those models. Apple, what gives?