I feel ripped off...
- Thread starter rift065
- Start date
DeltaMac
Tech
The 64MB is not dedicated graphics memory, as in past models. The Intel GMA 950 graphics processor uses 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory. Kind of confusing as the minimum graphics memory usage is 80MB, so you are left with 432MB of system memory available (assuming no additional memory installed). The previous iBook G4 had only 32MB video memory.
The MacBook is just not sold as a high-end video system, but is considered a mid-range performer (testing shows it to be quite good, even with the shared memory).
If you want dedicated vid memory, get a MacBook Pro.
The MacBook is just not sold as a high-end video system, but is considered a mid-range performer (testing shows it to be quite good, even with the shared memory).
If you want dedicated vid memory, get a MacBook Pro.
DeltaMac
Tech
Simply, the video has 64 MB to use, but remember, it's shared with the main memory, which provides a minimum of 80 MB, and can vary above that. Actual amount in use will vary depending on what you are doing at the moment, the vid memory is not dedicated memory, it's shared with the main memory, so there's no actual vid memory figure, except 'at the moment'.
Maybe someone else here will add another perspective on that.
Maybe someone else here will add another perspective on that.
If I did not know better and had bought a Mac Book I would be very upset. I agree with rift065. The g4 I book has 32mb dedicated video memory and to brag up the speed of the intel cpu's Then charge as much as they do with no video card is a sham. Mac Books should have minium of 64 mb of video memory and option for 128 mb. My Mac Book Pro came with 128 mb memory and max of 256 mb on top Mac Book Pros. I would expect the same of the Mac Books!
Oh come on, guys. The iBook's graphics never were something to write home about, either. Actually, the MacBook's graphics perform better than the last iBook G4 if I remember the charts correctly. It's not aimed at the computer gamer, it's Apple's cheapest model and it handles *ALL* iLife's graphics quite well, doesn't it. You feel ripped off? Then you weren't informed. But if you somehow EXPECTED 128 or even 256 MB VRAM, I wonder where that'd come from. If, however, you're so p****d off that this is a dealbreaker for you, then simply bring the baby back. Someone will take care of it.
No I am not feeling ripped off Fryke, I have a Mac Book Pro and the grapic are great, but I think a dual core laptop should have a dedicated video card. Don't misunderstand me not looking Mac Book to be video editing machine, but it should not be slowed down when doing Photo Shop Apps. I was agree with the person who order the Mac Book it should not share ram with the system memory. For the same price as Mac Book you can pick up a Win laptop 1.83 gig dual core and the ATI x1600 video the same video card that comes in my Mac Book Pro. So for the price point Apple should be able to put in 64mb video card.
blikseme300
Registered
Windows is a resource hog, hence you need more resources! The notebook/laptop video chipsets are designed to work with memory sharing. Heat and excessive power consumption forces the designers to do this. Try and compare the Mac and the Windoze machines side-by-side. You might just be surprised.
Viro
Registered
Unless you're working with 3D, the video card doesn't really matter these days. You'd need the video memory for the framebuffer, the double buffer, and maybe if you had that enabled somewhere, the triple buffer. 8 MB is plenty for that purpose. The macbook comes with 64, so I fail to see what the big deal is?
You could happily live with 8 MB of video ram if all you ever did was 2D. The only time this actually makes a difference is if your apps made use of Core Video and Core Image, but if you were running Photoshop and other "pro" applications, the Macbook isn't being targetted at you. That's what the MBP is for.
I'm currently shopping around for a laptop and believe me, the PC laptops do *not* match the Macbook at that price point. Sure, they may have slightly better specs (with a dedicated video card) but they do not run Mac OS X, and more importantly most feel flimsy compared to the Macbook. I'm much more of a Linux person nowadays (hence my absence from these boards) but the Macbook is good value for money, especially given the build quality.
Now if they'd just fix the stupid overheating issue....
You could happily live with 8 MB of video ram if all you ever did was 2D. The only time this actually makes a difference is if your apps made use of Core Video and Core Image, but if you were running Photoshop and other "pro" applications, the Macbook isn't being targetted at you. That's what the MBP is for.
I'm currently shopping around for a laptop and believe me, the PC laptops do *not* match the Macbook at that price point. Sure, they may have slightly better specs (with a dedicated video card) but they do not run Mac OS X, and more importantly most feel flimsy compared to the Macbook. I'm much more of a Linux person nowadays (hence my absence from these boards) but the Macbook is good value for money, especially given the build quality.
Now if they'd just fix the stupid overheating issue....
It's much like guys and the horsepower of their cars. Sure, you'll be stuck in traffic anyways, but you certainly still need more than 200 hp. 
The overheating issue is solved for me. The SMC firmware update solved it - fan's on much more often now, keeping temperature lower. (Should've been like that from the beginning, but I guess Steve wanted his to be as silent as possible.)
Back to the graphics: It's really only about games and maybe 3D preview rendering. And OS effects. The internal graphics are enough for the system's effects, so I'm alright. Tetris clones are working well, too. I think this is _really_ only about people _feeling_ ripped off. They certainly _haven't_ been ripped off, because nowhere does it say that you'll get the "ultimate gaming machine" or anything like a "real ATi or nVidia graphics card". I've given up arguing about it, really. If people _really_ thought a "real" graphics card were worth more, they'd have bought used iBooks instead of a MacBook. We all know, though, that a MacBook has a *much* better value in many other areas, and I *still* have to find a person who plays highend games on an iBook that a MacBook can't play. (Unless, of course, they're incompatible because of the X86 architecture...)
The overheating issue is solved for me. The SMC firmware update solved it - fan's on much more often now, keeping temperature lower. (Should've been like that from the beginning, but I guess Steve wanted his to be as silent as possible.)
Back to the graphics: It's really only about games and maybe 3D preview rendering. And OS effects. The internal graphics are enough for the system's effects, so I'm alright. Tetris clones are working well, too. I think this is _really_ only about people _feeling_ ripped off. They certainly _haven't_ been ripped off, because nowhere does it say that you'll get the "ultimate gaming machine" or anything like a "real ATi or nVidia graphics card". I've given up arguing about it, really. If people _really_ thought a "real" graphics card were worth more, they'd have bought used iBooks instead of a MacBook. We all know, though, that a MacBook has a *much* better value in many other areas, and I *still* have to find a person who plays highend games on an iBook that a MacBook can't play. (Unless, of course, they're incompatible because of the X86 architecture...)
Viro
Registered
The thing is, the performance of the 950 chipset is actually better than the Radeon 9200 that was in the old iBooks. Barefeats has a graph that shows the Macbook churning out better framerates in World of Warcraft than a 15" Powerbook, which had a Radeon 9600.
It's an integrated video card, but thinking that it's worse than a 1998 video card is horribly misguided. It doesn't compare to high end video cards from nVidia and ATI, but it's nowhere near bad!
It's an integrated video card, but thinking that it's worse than a 1998 video card is horribly misguided. It doesn't compare to high end video cards from nVidia and ATI, but it's nowhere near bad!
We are talk price point here for the amount Mac charges they can not but a dedicated video card "please" Just because it is design by Mac does not always make it better. Yes OSX has a lot less issue than Win XP but do not sit here and try and tell the hardware im Mac computers also completly superior to Win machines. Becuase I will be the first to tell you are full of shit. There are 3 to 4 major manufactures of laptops and guess what they build the Mac and Win machines. I use both Mac and Win machines but I do not blindly think Mac is that much better in everything hardware and os.
Viro
Registered
You're failing to realize that when you buy a computer, you are not buying just the hardware. You're buying a solution that is meant to meet some computing need of yours. A computer without software is basically a heavy door stop. Macs may cost more than equally spec'ed Windows laptops, but for many they are cheap for their value, especially if it gets them away from the Windows spyware/adware/virus rut they are stuck in. Not only that, the ease of maintainance (drag drop adding/removal of software, etc) make it just that much more attractive. This isn't even taking into consideration the additional apps that ship with Macs, namely iLife and iWork. Sure, some similar packages will ship with PCs, but nobody will say they are equivalent unless they were severely biased against Macs. Again, this adds value. You can see where we are going with this train of thought.
Even if you were just buying hardware, specs are not all that matters, certainly not to everybody. A huge factor is build quality. I've been using laptops for years, and I have found there are only 2 laptop makers whose build quality sets them apart from the rest: Sony and Apple. All other laptop manufacturers merely produce plastic toys in comparison to the products put out by these two. Dells are the worst IMHO, as their laptops feel utterly flimsy, even their so called high end laptops. My Dell laptop broke down at least once every year(!!).
Like I've said before, I'm currently shopping for a laptop and while I don't really need a Mac, I'm seriously considering a Macbook. Why? You can surely find cheaper laptops, but here in the UK the Macbook costs £750 and all laptops in that price point (+/- £50) have similar specs to the Macbook. There are cheaper laptops, but those are not worth considering, if you've actually seen them.
blikseme300
Registered
No matter how many times I re-read my post, I can't seem to find where I mentioned that Apple's hardware is superior.
Compact computer devices all share the same problems when it comes to power consumption and heat. This is NOT a superiority flame war similar to the Linux vs Windows crowd.
Well if your are comparing Mac to Win hardware the new Mac Books are made by Asus. The original order was for 500,000 but that was before the Mac Books hit the steet. Asus builds a lot more Win machines than do Mac's. So other than bios and the Mac chip set there are not that much differance any more.
Well if your are comparing Mac to Win hardware the new Mac Books are made by Asus. The original order was for 500,000 but that was before the Mac Books hit the steet. Asus builds a lot more Win machines than do Mac's. So other than bios and the Mac chip set there are not that much differance any more with Mac swithing to Intel CPU's. As far a intergated graphic on laptops you have a choie to buy computer with a vido card or the cheaper shared memory. But like I said orignally for the price point of the Mac Book they should incude a video card. Even photo shop can slow down a computer with shared memory. Fryke is right Mac Book is not built for video editing but that was not the orginal nature of the post.