OSNews

Just don't believe that Intel integrated graphics suck as much as people describe them. "GMA900/950 are slow" is a meme in my opinion. They are not gaming GPUs but they work well enough in most situations. It's not only Macs, I've seen some modern (2 years old) games run on GMA900 and it performed ok.

If they gave it some dedicated RAM, I wouldn't have an issue with it being integrated. I don't play games, but c'mon, going from dedicated RAM for the video to shared is a step backwards IMO, regardless of the performance of the chip.

D3M0N - Go to an Apple store and actually use one and THEN tell us how bad it is. Actually you'll be telling us how good it is. Forget that it is integrated and sharing ram. If nobody had told you, you never would never realized it.

Edited 2006-05-19 22:51

I am not saying the performance is bad! All I am saying is the lack of dedicated RAM is a step backwards compared to the older ones with dedicated graphics. Yes, the performance is still MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better, but you have less available system RAM. So would I notice, you bet. I also don't care that its integrated - did you read what I even wrote???

"All I am saying is the lack of dedicated RAM is a step backwards compared to the older ones with dedicated graphics."

I meant to say compared to the older ones *with* dedicated RAM.

Too bad we can't seem to edit posts.

What is wrong with you people that can't figure out how to edit posts? I edit my posts all the time.


See, just did it now.

Edited 2006-05-20 11:11

I don't think it's a step backwards, it's just a step cheaper. If dedicated ram for the GPU is faster (accessible), ok that would be a reason to have it dedicated.

But if it's only about the amount of RAM available, it is even a step forward! Because if the OS is nice, it can define itself, how much RAM is spent to the graphics card (MacOS X can't). So if you have a 256 MB graphics card, that's a big waste if you don't have graphic intense stuff running..
But, if you have the same memory shared, _and_ the 256 MB are additionally in main memory, you even gain main memory most times.


The cheapy thing lies in that although some memory is used for the GPU, the manufacturer didn't spend more memory to the whole system, as he should. Still, this is not the fault of the memory sharing technique.

Intel has actually created a pretty good chipset for use doing GUI, MPEG etc.. sure its not great at 60fps 3D Gaming, but its good enough for video/photo editing and providing a very snappy and attractive desktop.

BTW, I want my voting ability back.

heck yeah, I can attest that's it's less than very useless outdoor,s on a sunny day. my work's campus has excellent wireless throughout, it'd be nice to take the PB outside sometime and do my work while enjoying some fresh air. helps if you can clearly make out the screen however...

s/useless/useful/

(isn't there some way you can edit your own comments (for typos like this)? how do you do so?)

I hope its on the list for OSNews v3.

After all we just got threading recently, what more do you want?

You can, for up to a few minutes after posting. Click the 'chain' link next to your comment to single it out, and then click on edit.

ok thanks, was wondering how to do that. I'd been thinking there would be an "edit" link or something...

hrm, nope, unless I'm just not seeing it. tried doing that with the comment I just put in response to yours, no edit to be clicked.

What is this keyboard really like?

Normal spacing, flat keys instead of curved.

Does the screen make that much difference? I really like how the one on my PowerBook performs with indoor lighting, but it can be rather annoying outdoors.

It's got a glare on it that from the side view can blind you. Front on it's ok in a non-glare enviroment.

The hard drive, RAM and battery are all removable and upgradable.

Standard laptop ATA drives, people are already digusing how a 7200 RPM will work in there.

I would get more RAM and install it yourself later, three screws in the battery bay is all you need to do.

Video performance isn't really great, but no laptop is going to 3D game well anyway.

Heat is better than the MBP, most likely because of the integrated video.

Optical digital ports is very nice.

Dissection pictures show the thermal paste seems to be more normallly applied than the gobs on the MBP.

Some early reports of "Boot Camp" or Parallels Workstation running XP should be rolling in over at Accelerate Your Mac.com.

Speed benchmarks at Barefeats.com

Look at one in person and you will think completely differently.

Or maybe people are just now recognizing it's a computer, not a decorative piece. Maybe Martha Stewart and Thomas Kinkade should start designing their own cases.

Appearances can be deceiving

I thought the exact same when I saw a picture of the black MacBook but something hit me when I read that review. Compared to the MacBook, the iBook looks clunky. I'm typing this on an iBook right now and even now (this is about 2.5 years old), my iBook still looks miles more elegant than most laptops. Next time I'm near a computer shop, I'll have to have a look at a MacBook in person.

I've read a bit from various sources and found:

- They are doing the same thermal paste mistake on the MB as on the MBP.
- The service manual indicates the same excessive amount of paste as in the MBP manual.

It's been said before, but it really bears repeating that such a basic mistake is completely inexcusable. I don't have a single hour of formal training in computer hardware, but I was still able a proper job of installing a heatsink + CPU the first time. Even if you're almost entirely ignorant of the process, as I was, it's really not that hard - five minutes of Google'ing and 20 minutes of reading should be more than enough.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that a tech writer authoring a service manual could be that clueless - not only that, but it would appear that his/her editor is equally clueless.