Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

MattElmore wrote:

I don't want to have to fight with IRQ conflicts on the new Macs.

I doubt it. Unless Apple decides that OSX for Intel will be built around Windows 95/98 technology and the new motherboards will be using ISA expansion cards.

  Somehow I don't think apple would use old(er) technology.  They would only use it of it was extremely needed.

I certainly don't want to see IGPs because of the shared memory issue.  If I have 1GB of RAM, I want 1GB of RAM dedicated to my system, not sharing 8/16/32/64/128MB of it with my video processor.  Even higher amounts of shared memory would not be any good.  I mean sure...if I could have 256+MB of memory for my video processing, that would be great.  However, if it were shared, that would drop my 1GB to 768MB  system memory.  That's no good.  Even stealing a mere 32 or 64MB isn't really worth it in my opinion. 

nerdbunnie wrote:

I certainly don't want to see IGPs because of the shared memory issue.  If I have 1GB of RAM, I want 1GB of RAM dedicated to my system, not sharing 8/16/32/64/128MB of it with my video processor.

So buy 1.25 GB of ram.
That's really a petty reason - if you don't have integrated graphics, that extra bit of memory is just on the video card. With integrated, its in a ram slot.

Sorry - but that reason sucks.

resedit wrote:

nerdbunnie wrote:

I certainly don't want to see IGPs because of the shared memory issue.  If I have 1GB of RAM, I want 1GB of RAM dedicated to my system, not sharing 8/16/32/64/128MB of it with my video processor.

So buy 1.25 GB of ram.
That's really a petty reason - if you don't have integrated graphics, that extra bit of memory is just on the video card. With integrated, its in a ram slot.

Sorry - but that reason sucks.

Okay, with a machine that has 2-4+ RAM slots, it's not that big a deal considering how cheap 256 MB of memory is now-a-days, but do you think that the Mactel Mini will have more than one slot?  I realize that's the low-end desktop, but making it even more low-end by making you share the memory with only one RAM slot vs. the 32MB of dedicated VRAM sucks.

Now, I do realize this is all based on unknown retail system specs, but I'm just saying that I really don't like the idea of having to share my system memory.  Maybe it won't be as bad if Apple actually ships the things with more than 256MB of RAM....which, in my opinion, sucks.

nerdbunnie wrote:

Perhaps I should have been more specific.  I don't want to see IGPs with shared memory.  Integrated graphics with dedicated memory is okay, but I really hate sharing memory.

It won't be IGP until and unless price is a object, whatever video chipset/method the new MacTel use is not Intel related, but rather a pure Apple decision.

aki wrote:

ATI and nVidia integrated chipsets with their own VRAM are not used solely by PPC Macs.

I understand that, but it seems to be quite common, on the Wintel side of things, that most computers with integrated video chipsets share the memory between the system and video.

After all, if you look at most Dells, Compaqs, eMachines, etc...the majority of the computer makers that make most of the computers that people generally buy (obviously I'm not talking about home built machines) you'll find that the integrated video shares memory with the main system.

I just think that this practice of leaching from the main system memory to power the video is really dumb.  Most all of us are well aware of the issue of shared memory, but I really don't think that most people who go out to Walmart and buy the computer bargain of the week really have an understanding of this.  They see that the computer has 512MB of memory, and that the video processor has (up to) 128MB of video memory...they don't really get that their system now actually has only 384MB of RAM available to it...not the 512 they saw on the box.

I guess that now that I get this written out, my problem is not really with the shared memory between system and the integrated video processor...but rather with the generally deceptive practices of many computer makers.  They don't really let people if they use the highest video settings that they have less memory...until they notice during the initial memory check at boot-up that it counts a lower number than what they were told and they call up the company to complain.

And no.  I don't give people the credit to understand this on their own.  I have too many family members who are too smurf to switch to Mac who haven't understood the shared memory issue.

Last edited by nerdbunnie (2005-06-11 11:57 am)

radams wrote:

nerdbunnie wrote:

aki wrote:

ATI and nVidia integrated chipsets with their own VRAM are not used solely by PPC Macs.

I understand that, but it seems to be quite common, on the Wintel side of things, that most computers with integrated video chipsets share the memory between the system and video.

And Apple had the ability to do this while using PPC chips.  If they didn't have Shared RAM for the iBook's before, why would they now?

They probably won't but since the topic was "things I DON'T want to see in Intel Macs" I thought I'd mention that I don't want to see shared memory in Intel Macs considering that the integrated Intel graphics (from what I've seen) is shared memory by default.

Results taken from http://www.macintouch.com/perfpack/tables.html



The specifics of each Mac can be found in the linked web page.

The Celeron is an Acer Aspire 1410 with 512MB ram,  Integrated Intel 855 video, 496MB system, and 32 MB shared.

If that's the rock-bottom of the current Intel Celeron M and integrated Intel video lineup, then I don't think future Apple laptop users need to worry too much about graphics performance in budget machines. 

What exactly is so unacceptable about  Celerons and Intel integrated graphics? Looking at the current lineup of macs, They'd be a step up.

Yes, but I highly doubt that was with the G5 optimized version. Cinebench is definitely more optimized for the PC, anyway. And even by those graphs, integrated graphics would be anything but a step up... (don't believe me? just look at the OpenGL (Hardware) results...)