Forums | MacLife

I'm sure game developers will be happy if the 9400M provides decent performance. The MacBook is the most popular Mac and having a decent GPU should make for a decent market for Mac games.

i don't see why it won't be able to run wrath. hell my 1.67ghz g4 can run burning crusade.

blizzard makes their games to run on old hardware. this is new hardware. it will be fine.

robco wrote:

It won't run the new expansion. specs

Mac System Requirements

OS: Mac OS X 10.4.11 or newer

Processor:
Minimum: PowerPC G5 1.6 GHz or Intel Core Duo processor
Recommended: Intel 1.8GHz processor or better

Memory:
Minimum: 1 GB RAM
Recommended: 2 GB RAM

Video:
Minimum: 3D graphics processor with Hardware Transform and Lighting with 64 MB VRAM Such as an ATI Radeon 9600 or NVIDIA GeForce Ti 4600 class card or better
Recommended: 3D graphics processor with Vertex and Pixel Shader capability with 128 MB VRAM Such as an ATI Radeon X1600 or NVIDIA 7600 class card or better

Not sure if the GMA 950 in my MacBook can handle it.

It's iffy, even with the eye candy off. Framerates will be low at best, but I'd be concerned about some showstopping bug. The DX8.1+ programmable shader abilities of the 950 are bit lacking, tho Intel keeps promising better drivers- and that's on Windows.

personified8 wrote:

i don't see why it won't be able to run wrath. hell my 1.67ghz g4 can run burning crusade.

blizzard makes their games to run on old hardware. this is new hardware. it will be fine.

The RAM is adequate, and the CPU more than. It's the graphics that are iffy, and Wrath hath grfx enhancements.

On paper it should run, but the ability to push pixels and eye candy at 1440x900 could tax it. The 9600M is pretty MOR for gaming. The 9400M is new, we'll just have to see. It is a considerable step up from the previous MBs.

Spore's new but graphically undemanding. CoD4 would be a much better test.

It's probably worth noting that, tho power savings are notable with the new chips, the batteries are smaller, so battery life is likely about the same except for the MBA. Apparently that's the price of keeping weight and size about the same.

kman wrote:

I really think Apple needs a new CEO.  I'm not sure I've ever been more baffled as to what they're thinking as I am now.  I'd be ordering the $1599 MB right now if it had one little firewire port.  Without it, I'd have to sell my FW Audio Interface and get a USB one, and my Sony Camera is useless.

In fact, iMovie is more or less useless for anyone who buys one of the new MacBooks.  And anyone who buys the MBP will have to get an obnoxious adapter dongle.

Also, the $1300 computer has a 160GB HD?  And the $2k one has a 250GB laptop?  Unreal.  Walk through any WalMart and you'll see $5-600 (or less) laptops with 320GB HDs.

No matte screen option on the Pros?

And am I to understand that they will still be selling the low-end macbook for $999 - does that mean that they'll STILL have a combo drive in their lineup?

And they are essentially raising the prices in a global recession.  We'll see how that pans out.


Unbelievable.  I'm really not sure what to get - I'm thinking about a refurbished Macbook Pro, but I don't want to have to take it apart to put a new hard drive.

This about sums up my opinions as well. I was going to buy a new MBP and hand-me-down this one to my wife. Now it looks like I'll just stick with the one I've got and buy my ol lady an refurb MacBook. I don't understand Apple's direction at all. I was only waiting for a speed bump. Instead of a speed bump we got an aluminum brick and a bunch of options taken away.

Oh please, that's an exaggeration if I've heard one. A specific option is gone on 2 models period. Not at all good but not the horror show of missing features you claim.

I'm guessing you bought a DCR-HC28 or DCR-TRV520, kman, if so my condolences if not from what I read you'll find a USB port on the thing somewhere. (Solution for any camera is a RCA to USB converter) (Solution for DCR-TRV520 is a Memory stick reader)

$5-600 or less for a Walmart lappy 320 GB HD doesn't mesh with their website. The cheapest I see with that drive you mention is a Dell for $798 ($49 cheaper than the Intel equivalent on the Dell website) and the only laptop in the price range has a 120 GB HD and it's GPU is comparable to an X31000 but typically Apple HD have been a bit more expensive have they not.

BTW the $999 "Classic" (with FireWire) now has a Superdrive not a combo drive.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-10-15 9:02 am)

ScifiterX wrote:

Oh please, that's an exaggeration if I've heard one. A specific option is gone on 2 models period. Not at all good but not the horror show of missing features you claim.

I'm guessing you bought a DCR-HC28 or DCR-TRV520, kman, if so my condolences if not from what I read you'll find a USB port on the thing somewhere. (Solution for any camera is a RCA to USB converter) (Solution for DCR-TRV520 is a Memory stick reader)

$5-600 or less for a Walmart lappy 320 GB HD doesn't mesh with their website. The cheapest I see with that drive you mention is a Dell for $798 ($49 cheaper than the Intel equivalent on the Dell website) and the only laptop in the price range has a 120 GB HD and it's GPU is comparable to an X31000 but typically Apple HD have been a bit more expensive have they not.

BTW the $999 "Classic" (with FireWire) now has a Superdrive not a combo drive.

OK, looking things over I guess that was a bit of a stretch - Although there are plenty of $600-range laptops with 250GB HDs and most of the laptops I've seen at retail stores in the $700-1000 are either 250 or 320.  It is very hard to find a laptop over $1000 with less than 250, and most are 320.  That's why it's embarrassing for Apple to have:

$1000 - 120GB HD (?!?)
$1300 - 160 GB HD
$2000 - 250 GB HD

I've said it before, but I think if Apple is going to bill itself as selling "premium" computers at a premium price, they should have premium specs.

I haven't shopped video cameras in a while, so I didn't realize that many are going to USB and hard-drive based recording now.  My sony is a bit older, and does have USB 1.0, but it's really just for transfer from the Memory Stick.  Most of my friends still use MiniDV and firewire with their video cameras, and I don't want to have to buy a new one or get an expensive adapter when firewire is still so prevalent.  In fact, I don't know anyone that has a USB-Camcorder.  The same goes for my audio interface.  There are at least as many Firewire interfaces out today as there are USB, and most of the good ones use firewire.  I stand by my sentiment that I believe Apple has pulled an abysmal error by not including firewire 400 on all their laptops.

I'm glad to see that the low end has a Superdrive, but I'd file that under "bout frickin' time" and not as a big plus, per se.  I'm glad that the combo drives are almost completely removed from Apple's lineup. (we're pulling for you, Mac Mini!)

Speed of transfer. What takes 40 odd minutes on USB (transferring an hour's worth of video) takes a minute or two on USB2.0 or FireWire. Like I said it's not at all good but I can see that it's not as dire as some are making it out as. As long as this doesn't affect desktops and the laptop with FireWire balance doesn't go past it's current point it's more painful than harmful.

with the ipods it didn't effect the functionality...

In this case apple just remove the ability to import video (the proper way) from most of the consumer video cameras made in the last 10 years ... and ... the ability to use better audio interfaces.

I think you should check your calendar. It's October 2008
The first mac with firewire was the B&W it has FW 400 and was introduced January 1999
Thats 2 months away from 10 years.  The IEEE standard was completed in 1995. Which is 13 years ago.
I have a Sony Handycam from 2000 it had firewire. I got a 1200$ Hp laptop in 2001 it had firewire. Every sony Digital non dvd or harddrive  camera I have picked up in the last 8-9 years  have had ilink (firewire). Every canon I have pick up also has had firewire. ANd PLEASE bear in mind that I am talking consumer video cameras ... I have only held a pro camera once (it had FW too).

Many of the cameras that actually have a usb port only allow lo res streaming. even if you could stream the same quality via usb, it doesn't change the fact that you recommend someone capture the video via an analog to usb adapter which would be completely the wrong way to do it.


IF you want to talk audio capture.... The USB one are garbage compared to the FW ones. And the MacBook is more than capable of running logic or protools and capturing multi tracks of high res audio... The small .xx Ghz increase you would get with the MBP really wouldn't matter too much. neither would the GPU. The only real benefit from the MBP would be the screen size. If you just spent big $$ on your desktop rig you don't need to spend huge $$ on your mobile rig ... well until now. The MB made a great portable recording studio.

That is still less than 10 years for a system and 8 years for a camera (the crux of your argument). The standard my have existed but it was not in use so arguing it existed misses the point.

There you have a point but I repeat if you are dealing that level of work a pro system serves you better for screen size, drive size, CPU speed, RAM speed and a desktop because you don't have to deal with battery life. USB's quaility doesn't make it wrong it just makes FireWire better. Of course, I'd also argue many cameras have crappy results not necessarily due to USB but because the manufacture often cut corners to the detriment of the product.

And you just made my argument for getting the classic model if it suits your needs better. The GPU currently makes little difference in the tasks where you most need FireWire. The CPU may not help much but it does a little. The RAM limits are the same and it's always better to get and upgrade things like RAM and Hard drive yourself.

You hate Apple's price points, join the club. You think the FireWire is anything but good, I agree and have said so on at least two occasions. But Jesus H Christ to hear some of you whine you'd think the end of the world was announced yesterday. If something like this the market responds, sometimes for the better, sometimes not so much. This may be the push that make the camera & audio equipment makers not completely crap up the USB equivalents and/or finally move to FW800. Then again in 6-12 months, Apple may or may not decide to phase FireWire back in. We just don't know yet.

it's worse then them not including the cd on the air ... because you can at lease put a cd on the air... The mac book has no fw400 or fw800

Macskeeball wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

...though some cases it was beneficial since he had a USB only machine which wasn't support by the Color Photo iPod.

False. All 3G and 4G iPods (not to mention the mini) all supported both Firewire and USB. That was one of the purposes of the Dock connector, as opposed to the FireWire ports on the 1G and 2G iPods.

The iPod 3G's USB 2.0 support was PC only
The iPod 4G's USB support was 2.0 only
The iPod 5G's USB support was 2.0 with 1.1 compatbility.