# Apple Petition to Switch back to Dedicated Graphics Chips



## ntrsfrml (May 31, 2005)

Dear Friends,

I have just read and signed the online petition:

"Dedicated graphics chips on new macs"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nogma/

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might
agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider
signing yourself.

Best wishes,

notoriousformula


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

I hate to say it, but I wouldn't sign the petition myself.

I'm all in favour of a dedicated graphics chipset in the higher-end MacBooks. However, I don't think it would be fair to insist that dedicated graphics come in across the board. The Intel Mac mini had its price increase by $100 US even with GMA950; adding dedicated graphics would boost the price by even more, assuming that hardware can fit in the current architecture to begin with.


----------



## JPL (Jan 21, 2005)

Not me, I wouldn't sign that. I find nothing wrong with my iMac Intel, the limited number of games I play seem to run very well and it a small part of my usage. Gamers use PCs or a dedicated gaming machine, which are much better and cheaper if games are what you want.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

It's all about trade offs. If you want the dedicated chip, buy the MacBook Pro. If you expect it in a MacBook, be prepared to pay extra. Maybe Apple does need a MacBook+ that comes with the dedicated chip/RAM for another $200. Catch is, it's making it hard for them to differentiate with the Pro's feature wise. About the only difference right now is the case and screen and of course the video chip/RAM.

BTW, The petition is not well worded. 



> For these reasons, we the Undersigned believe that Apple Computer should ship future Mac models with dedicated graphics chips.


Mac models do ship with dedicated graphics chips. I think they meant future Mac Mini and MacBook, or, perhaps they should have said "ship future Mac models with ONLY dedicated graphics chips. 

Just to stir the pot a bit, how much RAM should be dedicated on future MacBooks? Should Apple ship with 64 Megs? 128? 256? Many current and of course future games are looking for 128 or 256 with more to come. Some of the current performance issues are likely due to the 64 meg of Video RAM.


----------



## gozer (Jan 15, 2002)

an online petition! it can't possibly fail!


----------



## shane3547 (May 25, 2005)

JPL said:


> Not me, I wouldn't sign that. I find nothing wrong with my iMac Intel, the limited number of games I play seem to run very well and it a small part of my usage. Gamers use PCs or a dedicated gaming machine, which are much better and cheaper if games are what you want.



Hrmm, don't the iMac Intel's come with dedicated video memory ... WHY YES THEY DO.


----------



## ender78 (Jan 23, 2005)

How many $1000-$1200 notebooks have the features that the MacBook has? The MacBook is very well priced for what it can do.


----------



## TripleX (Nov 6, 2002)

This petition is just plain silly. As an Apple consumer you have a CHOICE, no one, least of all Apple is forcing anyone to buy a particular machine. The hardware included with each product is clearly defined. If you want a dedicated video chip in a laptop, buy a MBP. Some people have way too much free time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My MBP runs any game I want to play to date, and one hell of a lot better than my Al Powerbook ever did. No need to sign anything that I can see.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

I can't speak for the mini's but I suspect the real reason why Apple went with Intel intergrated graphics for the macbook is if the macbook had its own dedicated video card, the vast majority of buyers would pass up the MBP for the macbook, hurting Apple financially.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Please. Give it up. Not just you but everybody blah blah blahing about the integrated graphics. This whole integrated graphics argument is totally unfounded. Buyers have the option of dedicated graphics in the MBP. There has to be some differentiation between the MB and the MBP, otherwise there'd be no reason for one to exist.

I think most people like to jump on this bandwagon not because of technical reasons, but because somebody else said it was bad to have integrated graphics.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

ender78 said:


> How many $1000-$1200 notebooks have the features that the MacBook has? The MacBook is very well priced for what it can do.


I wish the macbook had the option to upgrade to the X1600 with 128 megs of RAM. If it did, I'd be buying one right now.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

bandersnatch said:


> I can't speak for the mini's but I suspect the real reason why Apple went with Intel intergrated graphics for the macbook is if the macbook had its own dedicated video card, the vast majority of buyers would pass up the MBP for the macbook, hurting Apple financially.


Not to mention that Intel integrated graphics are probably $0 to Apple, whereas ATI certainly wouldn't be...


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

mikef said:


> Please. Give it up. Not just you but everybody blah blah blahing about the integrated graphics. This whole integrated graphics argument is totally unfounded. Buyers have the option of dedicated graphics in the MBP. There has to be some differentiation between the MB and the MBP, otherwise there'd be no reason for one to exist.
> 
> I think most people like to jump on this bandwagon not because of technical reasons, but because somebody else said it was bad to have integrated graphics.


I completely agree.. not EVERYONE needs dedicated video memory.. in fact.. a lot of people who would buy the Macbook would be average users.. such as students.. etc.. with no need whatsoever for dedicated graphics.. Who needs 128MB of VRAM to surf the web and email?


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

Vexel said:


> I completely agree.. not EVERYONE needs dedicated video memory.. in fact.. a lot of people who would buy the Macbook would be average users.. such as students.. etc.. with no need whatsoever for dedicated graphics.. Who needs 128MB of VRAM to surf the web and email?


My opinion on this issue is I wish Apple made the option to upgrade to a dedicated video card available on the apple store website.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Where would that leave the MBP though? The #1 reason that anyone wants to get the MBP is for the dedicated Vid.. everything else is user upgradable (with the exception of the cardslot). Say Buh Bye to the MBP if they ever did that.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

Vexel said:


> Where would that leave the MBP though? The #1 reason that anyone wants to get the MBP is for the dedicated Vid.. everything else is user upgradable (with the exception of the cardslot). Say Buh Bye to the MBP if they ever did that.


Yeah, scroll up and read my previous posts. I just want it all.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

bandersnatch said:


> Yeah, scroll up and read my previous posts. I just want it all.


BOH! 

Sorry!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

JPL said:


> Not me, I wouldn't sign that. I find nothing wrong with my iMac Intel, the limited number of games I play seem to run very well and it a small part of my usage. Gamers use PCs or a dedicated gaming machine, which are much better and cheaper if games are what you want.


Um, iMac Intel has a dedicated chip in there, this is just in regards to the MacBook and MacMini with the integrated chips. I do agree with Apple's decision because a good number of people I know do not play 3D games. Apple should've done a $100 upgrade to ATI x300 card or something, it's interesting to note that iMac and MacBook Pros also have Integrated Intel GMA 950 chipsets in them, just that it's disabled and the ATI x1600 is used.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

dona83 said:


> Apple should've done a $100 upgrade to ATI x300 card or something, it's interesting to note that iMac and MacBook Pros also have Integrated Intel GMA 950 chipsets in them, just that it's disabled and the ATI x1600 is used.


Is this true? For once, I wish Apple would follow Sony's lead and allow us to use the integrated chip for better battery life unless we need the dedicated graphics.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

milhaus said:


> Is this true? For once, I wish Apple would follow Sony's lead and allow us to use the integrated chip for better battery life unless we need the dedicated graphics.


I think the integrated graphics are big part of why I can get well over 5hrs of battery life out of my MacBook, and that it cost significantly less than a MBP. For a portable whose focus is not games the 950 graphics are totally fine.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Surely what matters is that you start by assessing your needs, and then purchase the appropriate Mac. 

If a Mini or MB can do what you want them to do, does it matter wether or not the graphics are integrated?

If they cannot handle the work you throw at them because of the graphics then you need a pro machine.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

I signed. The new Macbooks are a downgrade from my iBook.
I can play World of Wacraft with maxed graphics and a strong frame rate. (15 to 30 fps).
This Macbook can barely launch it. 

But for non-gaming perspectives, it's a great laptop.
I play sometimes games on my computer and I don't want to invest 2500$ in a laptop, so that's why I'm voting this petition.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I signed. The new Macbooks are a downgrade from my iBook.
> I can play World of Wacraft with maxed graphics and a strong frame rate. (15 to 30 fps).
> This Macbook can barely launch it.


I don't play the game, but am curious - is it Universal and thus able to run properly on Intel macs, or does it run under Rosetta?


Macworld just ran an article covering the graphics issue:
http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/firstlooks/macbookgames/index.php


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

Pelao said:


> I don't play the game, but am curious - is it Universal and thus able to run properly on Intel macs, or does it run under Rosetta?
> 
> 
> Macworld just ran an article covering the graphics issue:
> http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/firstlooks/macbookgames/index.php


LOL, you beat me to it. Damn you.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> LOL, you beat me to it. Damn you.


Humblest apologies. Won't do it again.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

DBerG said:


> I signed. The new Macbooks are a downgrade from my iBook.
> I can play World of Wacraft with maxed graphics and a strong frame rate. (15 to 30 fps).
> This Macbook can barely launch it.
> 
> ...


I'm going to start a list of Pro's and Cons between the iBook and the Macbook. 

Cons: 

- Integrated Slower Graphics Performance. (Not a gaming machine)
- Not everything is Universal Yet

Pros: 

- Much faster with Universal Applications (Anywhere from 2 - 5X faster)
- Built in iSight
- Front Row
- 13" Widescreen (OS X looks much nicer in Widescreen, IMO)
- Bootcamp/Parallels for Windows at Native and Near Native speeds.
- Core Image/Core Video
- Optical Sound Inputs and Outputs (On top of standard analog)
- 667Mhz frontside Bus, compared to 133Mhz
- 2 Ram Slots supporting up to 2GB (Can't remember if one of the iBooks was soldered?)

Feel free to add to the list.. I'd really like to figure out if it's a step down.. These are just off the top of my head. 

edit:

Just read this. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-mac-tech-support&t=24746&p=1&tmp=1#post24746

Apparently, The MacBook is going to receive better drivers to run the graphics performance better. People are getting higher framerates in Windows on the Macbook than in OS X.. so it's just a matter of time and the MacBook will catch up.  That's another thing about new revisions.. these things aren't completely running great and fine tuned.. it WILL get better. (hopefully)


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

Even the base MacBook will do the trick for 95% of home users. The other 5% will be pissed cause they bought the laptop to play the latest and greatest games. Their dumb mistake. Use a desktop or a console for that.

The Pros need more graphics power and guess what? They get it.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I won't be signing that petition because frankly, I think it's anti-choice. It's up to the consumer to decide what features they want and how much they're willing to pay for it.

Long live the free market.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

For general use, integrated graphics is more than adequate. Since general use is Apple's target market for the mini and MacBook, it's perfectly reasonable to go this route. Really the only downside to it is that it eats into your usable system RAM. But with RAM being as cheap as it is these days (as long as you don't buy from Apple!) giving up 80 MB is less relevant than it would've been a few years ago.

People don't buy entry-level PCs for top-of-the-line gaming, and we shouldn't be surprised that Apple isn't catering to gamers on their low-end systems.


----------



## Mad Mac (Mar 13, 2005)

The problem for me is not that the graphics are integrated but that the memory is shared. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the ATI chipset in the MBP integrated? Its not a question of integrated graphics are bad, just that Apple picked a cheap chipset and then crippled it with shared momory IMHO.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

dona83 said:


> it's interesting to note that iMac and MacBook Pros also have Integrated Intel GMA 950 chipsets in them, just that it's disabled and the ATI x1600 is used.


Woah, seriously? I didn't know that. Where did you hear about this? 

As milhaus mentioned previously, it'd be awesome to be able to enable it for situations where battery life is most important. I wonder if this would be at all possible via a kernel extension, etc? Most interesting.


----------



## retrocactus (Jun 17, 2003)

Pelao said:


> I don't play the game, but am curious - is it Universal and thus able to run properly on Intel macs, or does it run under Rosetta?


It's universal....was one of the first 'big' games to be offered that way.

I have it installed on my iMac 20" under OSX and XP (boot camp) and the frame rate is more consistant for me under OSX but looks better under XP with the same settings. Mind you XP has only a handful of games installed and that's it whereas OSX has a little bit of everything.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Even the base MacBook will do the trick for 95% of home users. The other 5% will be pissed cause they bought the laptop to play the latest and greatest games. Their dumb mistake. Use a desktop or a console for that.
> 
> The Pros need more graphics power and guess what? They get it.


Yup


> I won't be signing that petition because frankly, I think it's anti-choice. It's up to the consumer to decide what features they want and how much they're willing to pay for it.
> 
> Long live the free market.


And yup.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Ditto, what Pelao said.


----------



## SilverMaple (Apr 22, 2006)

NBiBooker said:


> I won't be signing that petition because frankly, I think it's anti-choice. It's up to the consumer to decide what features they want and how much they're willing to pay for it.
> 
> Long live the free market.


Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Yup
> 
> 
> And yup.


why does this seem to revolve around gaming only? am i wrong to say that a graphics accelerator is used for other things. OTHER than games? what of the student who cannot afford 2500-3000 just to get a laptop with a decent GPU so that he can use Maya and photoshop?

i'm sorry. i don't understand why you people think it's okay for apple to provide a sub-par product just because they give a reason for it. and don't ask me what PC offers the same stuff the macbook does because if i cared i wouldn't buy a mac. 

if i'm in the market for a laptop now, i'm more likely to get the iBook now just because life is a lot better when the GPU is not sharing memory. and when it has true Core image and quartz.


this petition is valid.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

gnatsum said:


> i'm sorry. i don't understand why you people think it's okay for apple to provide a sub-par product just because they give a reason for it. and don't ask me what PC offers the same stuff the macbook does because if i cared i wouldn't buy a mac.
> this petition is valid.


 I'm sorry, I don't understand why you think Apple needs to produce products that cater to every single consumer in the market. If you can't afford a MacBook Pro - and really, you can get a 1.83 with x1600 for $1800 now - then you're SOL.

Personally, I'd like a 12.1 Widescreen 1440x900 MacBook Pro with all of the features of the 15, with shared graphics because I don't game, all for under $1700. Petition coming soon; please, please sign it . . .


----------



## gozer (Jan 15, 2002)

gnatsum said:


> if i'm in the market for a laptop now, i'm more likely to get the iBook now just *because life is a lot better* when the GPU is not sharing memory. and when it has true Core image and quartz.


whaa...?

as for performance, what are you planning on using other than games that require a better GPU than what the macbook offers? if it's PS, see the recent creativemac benchmarks. when CS3 hits, the macbook(integrated graphics and all) will mop the floor with the iBooks dedicated GPU.

as for maya, it's almost matching the macbook pro as well.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

... clearly it's a valid market that apple should consider if there's a petition. sure there are a lot of cracked fanatics on this planet, so accuse me of being guilty. guilty of demanding a better product from the people we are handing over thousands of dollars to. and yes apple should cater to pro choice (no wonder they support the republicans). i should be able to have what i want in a machine. if i wan't a small machine with a good GPU and small size and DVD burner. am i asking too much? if you think you'll get all that under 1700 then that's your little life. hope it's going great for you. petition coming soon; please, please sign it...

*gozer* let me have a look at those benchmarks and i'll get back. i'm assuming the processor is the same as the one in the mini? because if i remember from the performance of that one...it was pretty useless for graphics.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

Gozer. after reading creative mac's data. i would almost certainly be sold. but my gut told me to check with my favourite site. Barefeats.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html

not such a hot machine there... the macbook.... kind of where it should be. but still with stupid games capability. stupid to the point where apple dug it's own grave for the low end gamer market....


anyway have a look at that...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> stupid to the point where apple dug it's own grave for the low end gamer market....


gnatsum

How do you define the low-end gamer market? Is it that the games are low end, in other words not the latest, most demanding games? Or is it that the gamers are low end, demanding top end computers at low end prices?

I ask because in reading the Macworld article I understood that for a lot of games the MB is great. It's only for what they determine as very demanding games where the MB loses out.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

The people who wants to play games on the go would probably buy a GameBoy Micro, Nintendo DS, or Sony PSP. There are also some really good cell phone games too. The market of people who will whip out their laptop to play games is probably really small.

That said, Apple really should've put a graphics upgrade option. Look at the new Dell XPS M1210 which is a pretty decent 12" widescreen laptop. The standard $1399 configuration is a Core Duo 1.66Ghz and Intel GMA 950 and 60GB HD... and is really quite pricey compared to the MacBook save the current 2GB RAM that comes with it for a limited time (otherwise it comes with 1GB of RAM... a 1.83Ghz MacBook with same config can be had for $1369... Dell doesn't have the price advantage anymore do they, mind you the XPS line is really good IMO). They do offer a very attractive $150 upgrade to NVidia GeForce Go 7400 256MB dedicated. I'm wonderring if it's just that Apple just has no more room on the oddly shaped MacBook logic board to fit an ATI (or, ugh, NVidia) card onto.

The volume of the iBook was 137in^3.
The volume of the MacBook is 123in^3.

Something had to go, and since the Intel designed logic boards for the MacMini, MacBook, iMac, and MacBook Pro all have the GMA 950 chipset whether Apple wanted it or not, I guess Apple figured why spend more R&D for a probably marginal market. 

I remember when I bought my $1700 PC in 2002 when $700 offerings could be had, my dad was wonderring why I would spend so much money on a computer, my answer was simple, I wanted to play games on it. (got the at the time state of the art ATI Radeon 8500DV All-In-Wonder, was that ever a sweet do-everything video card). The ultimate gaming PC was $3000+. Nowadays it's simple, either get a basic $700 Mac Mini or the much more capable $1500 iMac if you want a all round better system that can also game, or a $2500 PowerMac G5 if you really want to game. You either get a simple $1250 MacBook or go for a $2100 MacBook Pro if you want a more capable game-able system. 

Ok I said too much.


----------



## SilverNBlack (May 26, 2006)

There are few things that can be said here. First, about tactics---it is obvious that petitions are kind of short on results and easy to ignore. But that doesn't mean the basic argument here is without merit, nor can it be "anti-choice" or anti-free market to call for better products from Apple. That is one of the more bizarre assertions made here and I am surprised so many would jump on this bandwagon... this is not calling for a boycott, is it?

Many of you have a point about product differentiation between the MacBook and the Pro models and fair enough. You get what you pay for, presumably--so why not apply this logic to the question of integrated graphics? It is very hard to claim the Macbook offers, in hardware terms, any exceptional value over other laptops on the consumer end, one that would justify the Apple premium, however modest.

Apple, having a business model based on higher margins, needs to justify why its products cost slightly more. It is OK to have the base Macbook with integrated graphics for $1250, not commodity pricing but nonetheless reasonable. But why not a better integrated graphics such as ATI is making, or the option to BTO one with a slightly less robust video card than the Macbook Pro has? 

If the integrated graphics were taken on their own, it might not be such a big deal. But it seems to me that, far from Apple building their historically exceptional laptops that are thinner and lighter, with premium features, it is actually dumbing down the line to just be comparable. It made these computers too heavy and did not offer anything lighter, even among the Pros. And they have integrated graphics. And they lack a card slot. OK, maybe not so big deal at $1250. 

But really, where is the replacement for the 12" Powerbook? A thin and light, truly mobile machine. There is no reason they couldn't build a 13" laptop that was lighter than 5.2 lbs? It is just not justifiable, ESPECIALLY with integrated graphics.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

Here's your answer to your low end gaming problem: $1799 for a Macbook Pro.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...VVokxh/1.0.0.19.1.0.8.7.3.5.1.1.6.1.5.1.0.5.0
Here's where you start complaining about not wanting a nice non reflective matte screen, .4 pounds heavier, and that the extra $150 puts it out of your price range. The petition is certainly valid, if you enjoy wasting your time. I was joking about starting a petition for my 12 MacBook Pro, BTW. 

"Low end gaming" - that's an amusing category . . .


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

milhaus said:


> Here's your answer to your low end gaming problem: $1799 for a Macbook Pro.
> http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...VVokxh/1.0.0.19.1.0.8.7.3.5.1.1.6.1.5.1.0.5.0
> Here's where you start complaining about not wanting a nice non reflective matte screen, .4 pounds heavier, and that the extra $150 puts it out of your price range. The petition is certainly valid, if you enjoy wasting your time. I was joking about starting a petition for my 12 MacBook Pro, BTW.
> 
> "Low end gaming" - that's an amusing category . . .


actually. not just to spite you, regardless if i have reason or not. i prefer the matte screens. because i prefer to see what's on my screen. not look at myself in the pretty little glossy screens.


in regards to low end gaming.

take myself for example. 

i like the odd game here and there on my computer, some unreal, some diablo 2, some warcraft. am i asking for ragdoll physics and the latest shading and textured graphics? no. i just want to be able to play a decent game here and there. 

for whatever else i like. i have my playstation. There are times when people might be bored and just want to have fun. or maybe you work a lot and don't have time to put in hours and hours and endless money into games like WoW. i'm not asking for HD graphics. i'd get a ps3 (when it comes out) for that. 


low end gaming: precisely what low end macs could do. and should do. 

so pelao? see which take i'm coming from? if i wanted to get 100 FPS on games like Halo and Farcry why would i waste my time and risk carpal tunnel on this argument. i'd be at pacific mall getting an AMD with SLi graphics.


p.s. it was great to see my friends iBook (radeon 9550) destroy her bf's HP laptop at America's Army. even though he was on a brand new intel centrino 1.6 Ghz with none other than. Intel graphics. low end gaming.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Not sure if this has been mentioned already as I couldn't read the entire thread but onboard graphics will get much better going forward. Intel's GMA X3000 integrated GPU (next gen), which is what the next Macbook and Mini will "probably" have, is quite decent:

The GMA X3000 represents a dramatic architectural change from previous GMA iterations. The X3000 adds hardware T&L units, pixel shaders, vertex shaders and WMV9 (VC-1) video acceleration. Intel claims the X3000 is Shader Model 3 compliant.....

X3000's underlying hardware is organized as an array of programmable (unified) pipelines. Each pipeline can process video, vertex, or texture operations. A central scheduler dynamically dispatches threads to pipeline resources, to maximize rendering throughput (and decrease the impact of individual pipeline stalls.) As each pipeline is fully programmable, in theory X3000 can target either DirectX 9 or DirectX 10, determined by operating system and device driver. This design is consistent with the DirectX 10 generation of video cards from ATI and nVidia, which also utilize unified pipelines.

X3000 is offered in several chipsets, targeting different market segments:

In the top-end G965 the X3000 offers 8 full-featured unified pipelines running at 667 MHz. This is a quite high clock speed compared to most GPUs, which are generally between 400 MHz (low-end) and 667 (high-end). In comparison to fixed function, Intel datasheets indicate 2 pixel pipelines, for total of 1.33Gpixels/s (how the unified shaders are used is a mystery at this point). It can also share up to 384MB of RAM with the computer's CPU. Digital Video Out (DVO) port is boosted to 270 Mpixel/s. Dual independent display is supported via device connected to DVO port.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

The good news, the X3000 is better than GMA950. The bad news, in the PC world, the performance difference has been practically NIL, mostly due to drivers never being updated to use the X3000's capabilities. 

The reason for using GMA950 or X3000 is that it's built into the Intel chipset, so support is good, and it's practically free.

On the other hand, there's chipsets by ATI with the Integrated Radeon X300 (which is already over 2x better than GMA950) and a new chipset with integrated X1250 video (which utterly spanks any other integrated video solution.)

It would be lovely to see a Mac Mini with integrated Radeon X1250 graphics, which would be totally sufficient for anything short of blazing high-end 3D games or massive rendering, which isn't mini's intended audience anyway.

...but I'll bet you dollars-to-donuts that it'll be X3000 in the next incarnation, simply because Intel's getting the nickels. Oh well... it's still a small improvement. So long as you don't really need 3D, it's fine.


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

I wouldn't sign that. Firstly, any serious gamer has a console or a custom built gaming PC. Personally, I have a graphics card in my PC that costs more than a Mini, so I don't see what you want from a dedicated graphic chip-set. Gamers wouldn't buy a Mini or entry level book.
Now, I will say, that when I saw the upgrade to the 7600 GT on the iMac, I went for it, and it does play Grand Theft Auto quite nicely under XP. It was a good move, but never did I consider an entry level Mini as a possible gaming platform. This petition seems silly to me. Low end PC's can't play games with their built in video, and I think we all gave up a long time ago hoping for upgradeable all-in-ones from Apple. Gaming is nice on Mac, but has never been realistic unless you have the budget for a tower. Gaming on a PC or console makes more financial sense for a Mac user. I am truly surprised whenever a new game appears for Mac.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

What I would like to see, is for Apple to stop shipping their laptops with 2 x 256mb sticks of ram! How many people have useless 256 mb sticks sitting around doing nothing after they upgraded? Millions? It is nasty marketing on a shared video laptop to use 2 chips because you have to upgrade so the friggin' things will run half decently. No new laptop will run properly on 512 mb these days.

Gaming on a Mac? No thanks....


----------



## genuineadvantage (Mar 14, 2007)

Well I pretty much agree with everyone who said that they were not going to sign the petition. The MacBook is specifically designed for customers who have basic to moderate needs, and don't require a system with dedicated graphics. 

I however think that Apple should add a hybrid graphics system to the MacBook Pro. Sony does it with their Vaio. I do believe it is with the SZ series. The SZ series is priced competitively with the MBP and offers more features for the money. I still however am going to remain Mac faithful and I as stated before have NO intentions os switching or using a PC.

VAIO Computers - Computers by Series - SZ Series - Sony Style Canada


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i think the petition is silly, but i would be interested in a black probook

i never thought the black colour would capture me, but i guess apple's psychologists have done their homework....


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

genuineadvantage said:


> Well I pretty much agree with everyone who said that they were not going to sign the petition.


Seems in the _ten_ months the petition has been up, they've only garnered 54 sigantures. Pretty safe to say the petitioner doesn't "get" Apple.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

If Apple gets the X3000 drivers right, it should be a noticable improvement over the GMA950 - if not in 3D, then certainly in video/multimedia functions.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

genuineadvantage said:


> I however think that Apple should add a hybrid graphics system to the MacBook Pro. Sony does it with their Vaio. I do believe it is with the SZ series. The SZ series is priced competitively with the MBP and offers more features for the money. I still however am going to remain Mac faithful and I as stated before have NO intentions os switching or using a PC.
> 
> VAIO Computers - Computers by Series - SZ Series - Sony Style Canada


To add insult to that injury, both the MacBook Pro and the iMac have disabled GMA 950s on board since the GMA 950 is part of the chipset.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

dona83 said:


> To add insult to that injury, both the MacBook Pro and the iMac have disabled GMA 950s on board since the GMA 950 is part of the chipset.


Not entirely true... many of the Intel chipsets are 99% similar, with only certain bits added or removed. If there's no GMA950 in there, it's because that particular i965 chipset doesn't have GMA950. So it's got a dedicated graphics setup instead, eh? 


Pity Apple is going to be totally sold on Intel-brand-only chipsets.... that ATI chipset with integrated Radeon X1250 graphics would be _fantastic_ in a mini or low-end laptop.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2007)

The petitioin doesn't make much sense to me. There is a time and a place for everything, and if you're on a budget and don't need the latest and greatest video bit pushing, why not save some $$ and use a built on graphics chipset. If you don't like built on graphics chipsets, spend more $$ on a machine that has a dedicated graphics adapter. Choice is good!


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

Choice is good. And not having a Pro-level MacBook that's less than 15" is lack of choice.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

Does a Pro-level 13" laptop really make much sense? For the kinds of things you need that much computing power for, isn't more screen real-estate a good thing? I know Apple made the 12" Powerbook in the past, and there are people who swear by them...

But it seems to me that the people that want an ultra-portable, super-powerful computer are in the minority... if the market was large and profitable, Apple would be in it.

I would sooner see a 15" MacBook than a 13" MacBook Pro - to me forcing people to either accept the small screen or pay up for features they don't need is a lack of choice. But from a business perspective, Apple does better this way.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

BlueMax said:


> Pity Apple is going to be totally sold on Intel-brand-only chipsets.... that ATI chipset with integrated Radeon X1250 graphics would be _fantastic_ in a mini or low-end laptop.


When AMD swallowed ATI, that pretty much killed any kind ATI integrated chipset in an Intel made board. Intel has publicly stated they will no longer support ATI boards in future models. Even before that, the ATI 300 integrated GPU was actually advertised as being made for AMD chipsets even though they showed up on some Intel oem boards. nVidia's integrated Chipsets ain't too bad either. I think Apple has a better chance of convincing Intel to get in bed with nVidia for special Apple boards. Then again, Asus does a lot of the manufacturing for Apple, and Asus also manufactures motherboards with various integrated chipsets on the Intel platform - I believe the options are there for Apple. 

But, like some of you, Id' be fully satisfied with GMA X3000. There is no need for a gaming board in a Macbook or a Mini.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

16LBS of Power.

This is what you use if you want to play games on a laptop...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> 16LBS of Power.
> 
> This is what you use if you want to play games on a laptop...


:lmao:

That reminds me of a couple of PC "laptops" we used to have lying around the workplace...


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

I know a couple people that game on their laptops, and it just seems silly to me. Laptops already cost more than similar desktops, build a gaming laptop and you're looking at a huge expenditure. And to do it right, it's no longer very portable, either (case in point, the above).

I've you got the money to blow on a gaming laptop, why not buy a gaming desktop, and cheap laptop, and have money left over?


----------



## ..........? (Dec 25, 2005)

I don't agree.
If you look back at the ibook. The graphic card in those were horrible. Even though they were dedicate graphic but they have bad stats.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It's a miracle...after being dead, this thread has risen again!


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

shane3547 said:


> Hrmm, don't the iMac Intel's come with dedicated video memory ... WHY YES THEY DO.


Not all did. Prior to the introduction of the new "aluminum" iMacs, there was an "education" white Intel iMac which had the integrated graphics chip.


----------

