I think the MacBook was a "good attempt"

[Milk*is*tasty]

Err. The only use for a better graphics card would be gaming, and personally, I couldn't care less on a laptop (who the hell plays anything on laptops anyways). You're not using the GFX-card when using anything in OSX, it's not hardware-accellerated (to my knowledge, and if it is; the current GPU can handle it), and any other OpenGL-stuff is fast enough on the current integrated Intel-platform. And Flash-games? Has absolutely nothing to do with the GPU as long as it doesn't specifically use OpenGL-extensions. I mean, what do you people think GFX-cards do? They are basically accelerators for 3D, not magical GPGPU's - at this point. In other words, pretty basic. I mean, sure, you can get video acceleration and all, I see that point, but I'm not crying over that. Not watching BR or MPEG4-encoded 1080p-material on a MB.

Anyways. I haven't even got anything from Apple yet, but I'm buying a MB after MacWorld.

I am concerned about the heat though. The only reason for buying anything from Apple is actually the quality of the chassis and the construction of the laptop (and OSX), I want something completely quiet, as it is to be used for production of music. Fans speeding up in the middle of a recording with produce nothing other than a MB going through a window at a relatively high velocity.

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

I still don't really understand why someone would buy a 17 inch laptop. I see them at school all the time but it's weird! Go figure.

 

[Billy Bob]

I've rocked MAC's for about 6 yrs. I'm not the 30 yr veteran, but the second I laid hands on one I became a fanboy. I have a MAC sticker (somewhat hidden) on my Mercedes and I don't allow stickers anywhere near my Benz.

I started out with a G3 12" iBook (that I am typing on right now actually). I love this old thing and can't stand to let it die. Even though I have had to go in and fix the logic board every 6 months on it for the past few years (any other EE's in the house?) I have done it with the promise of having the book around for convenience since it will fit in my briefcase.

I bought it a big brother a couple years back when I visited the Apple store and fell in love with the big flagship 17" PowerBook. Best purchase I have ever made MAC wise. It's still mint and tough as nails, never an issue.

So with the coming of the new millennium I stepped into the next level and bought a MacBook to stay updated (to an extent). I love the brighter screen of the MacBook, and I like the extra 1.3 inches over my iBook. The glossy screen is nice looking...... as long as you are indoors in a room with mediocre lighting. I appreciate the self loading optical drive, though it can cause issues with different thickness media.

Then the cons start to outweigh the pros from here on.

-Heat is a number one issue with these books IMO. Warped cases, excessive wear internally from high temps, lot's of annoying fan action trying to keep the CPU cool.

- Build quality externally. Several issues with the plastics and design such as the now infamous "hole" that develops in the deck as a result of the top screen spacer resting on that spot. Yellowing issues reported. Bottom cases cracking, tied into the heat issue.

- Build quality internally. Integrated graphics card on a duo core machine is disappointing, especially the one that was used. On PC machines the driver that is designed for this integrated sound card actually causes stuttering in the video and audio, I have fortunately not experienced this (yet) on the MacBook driver. The use of this video card by Apple on a machine that had so much potential was obviously done to keep the Macbook from stealing customers away from the MacBook Pro side of things. With better temp control, the MacBook could stick a fork in the Macbook Pro with a high performance graphics card because people would buy it for size. Why would Mac limit this market where they do not have a more portable smaller machine in the 13in range with good media abilities? Obviously something is planned for the future to be small in the 13in range with stand alone graphics card integration. I just don't believe they'd leave this market alone without a reason. Still, this is about the MacBook and here they leave users hanging.

Though the build quality is a disappointment, the real issue I have with the MacBook is how much potential it had, only to be choked down. I bought this machine to replace my 17" Powerbook. I figured core duo, faster processor, more ram ability.... upgrade, ...........right? I mean, that WAS the point of buying a newer generation book. The graphics card is so BLAH that whatever potential the MacBook had to be a serious machine was instantly choked out of it and limited to it's graphics processing ability. Surfing the net is limited to whatever the integrated GMA will allow, photoshop is limited to whatever the GMA will allow, even coverflow.......

No matter how much ram you shove in it, you are limited to whatever the graphics card will allow, which in the GMA isn't much..... as I found out after having to buy the computer and experience it for myself to know exactly how it performs. The verdict is that I went from a 17" flagship model that was "outdated" to a 13" mid grade model that was "current" and the final word is that my Powerbook would rock this macbooks world.

I think Apple made a good attempt with the MacBook. I really do. It has enough specs to draw you in and get you excited, but is bottlenecked by design to limit the abilities to it's restrictions.

My advice to MacBook potential owners is to realize that while the specs are impressive enough to make you interested, look deeper into the system at the limitations that bottleneck what could be a monster of a laptop in a 13" case. Duo core, 2+g, 3 and 4 gig ram potential, all of this catches the eye and draws you in to the purchase..... but realizing the integrated graphics card cannot process on the level of a 3 yr old Powerbook makes all that fury seem like a little puppy rather than the mean dog it is pushed as. These specs mean NOTHING if you cannot process the video and audio that could potentially be used with them. The GMA is a weak and flawed graphics controller that can choke even on some flash games making your 3 gig of ram and duo cores useless.

My hats off to Apple for continuing their work to make better products for todays environments and keep with the flow, but in an effort to keep the MBP the top dog they have had to choke the MB's impressive specs into a limited package that will never reach it potential.

If they would have just kept the leash off it's neck, it would have been a monster even with the obvious physical design flaws. If you need small space and a fast package, the MacBook is a sure winner. However if you want to pump it up and stay under $1000, I'd recommend the last generation of Powerbook. You'll end up with more for your money.

You are obviously free to disagree with my perspective, but you can't change it's limitations or the fact that the 1st gen rev A macbooks were already more than the graphics card can handle so B, and C performance boosts are pointless with the exception of the few fixes to common issues. Don't buy them for performance. The specs of the rev A far outrun the GMA card. The rev D finally got a decent card, so kudos to that move.


........and I'm still a fanboy.

I in all honestly don't pushs my macbook to the edge in regards to performance. Most of what i do is reports and internet surfing, which doesn't require a hugely powerful computer. What I do wishfor however, is a durable and portable computer to fill my needs. Surprisingly the macbook can not do either.

 

[daneoni]

I in all honestly don't pushs my macbook to the edge in regards to performance. Most of what i do is reports and internet surfing, which doesn't require a hugely powerful computer. What I do wishfor however, is a durable and portable computer to fill my needs. Surprisingly the macbook can not do either.

how so? Maybe get an X61, TX or Toughbook

 

[hippo206]

I get your points, but...



OK, you figured wrong... not their fault. You went from an early pro machine to a recent light consumer machine. Think of it this way... I have a 1977 F-250 300ci six cylinder two wheel drive for hauling wood. Hauls two tons. I buy a 2007 F-150 5.4L 4x4 and I'm disappointed that it barely hauls a ton, what about all the Ford ads talking about upgraded suspension, best load handling in its class, etc.? Thirty years and five times the MSRP and it hauls half as much? The specs were misleading... four wheel drive instead of two wheel drive, 5.4L instead of 5.0, eight cylinders instead of six... where's my improved wood hauling performance?

That's not Ford's mistake... it's mine.

Haha, I was going to tear this post apart, but Carlgo beat me to it. Overall comparing vehicles to electronics will pretty much always fail. IMO, current electronics of the same lineage should always surpass the performance of 3 year old products.

 

[JackSwing]

I have to admit that i'm quite disappointed with the macbook i'm using now (macbook 2.2) after reading less then 10 comments about it. The reason i'm using a mac is because i wanted to do arranging with it. but when i run the mainstage, something pop up said that my graphic card can't support the application. i was so disappointed.... who doesn't want a macbook pro instead of macbook?But the price?...I'm a Malaysian Chinese, and buying a mac here is not cheap. i bought my macbook for 4,759 Malaysian ringgit which i think would be around 1,400++ US dollar. and a macbook pro? cost around 7,000++. really can't afford that...

 

[Macula]

I have to admit that i'm quite disappointed with the macbook i'm using now (macbook 2.2) after reading less then 10 comments about it. The reason i'm using a mac is because i wanted to do arranging with it. but when i run the mainstage, something pop up said that my graphic card can't support the application. i was so disappointed.... who doesn't want a macbook pro instead of macbook?But the price?...I'm a Malaysian Chinese, and buying a mac here is not cheap. i bought my macbook for 4,759 Malaysian ringgit which i think would be around 1,400++ US dollar. and a macbook pro? cost around 7,000++. really can't afford that...

You just need to update your software. There has been an update that addresses the issue you mention! You may find out more at the Apple Support forum.

 

[66217]

The MacBook has been a great laptop for me. Criticizing it for its GPU is not fair, it wasn't intended to be a gaming machine or a professional one. It is just for the regular student or home user who wants a nice laptop, but doesn't have or doesn't want to spend the extra money for the MacBook Pro.

Most users don't need anything better than the GMA 950.

As for how it handles applications, I think it makes a fair job, put 2 GB (or 4 GB in the new ones) and you'll have a great laptop. I run Aperture and Photoshop without problems. Granted, my use of Photoshop is far from being intensive, but then, if I really needed to use Photoshop for a living, I would never buy a 13" laptop to do my job, that's why the MBP exists.

 

[CashGap]

Haha, I was going to tear this post apart, but Carlgo beat me to it. Overall comparing vehicles to electronics will pretty much always fail. IMO, current electronics of the same lineage should always surpass the performance of 3 year old products.

Gotcha. This year's iPod shuffle should have a display superior to the a three year old iPod mini, this year's HP subnotebook should have more capability than a three year old luggable HP desktop replacement laptop, this year's USB pocket drive should have superior MTBF compared to three year old NAS from same company, etc.

Hmmm. I'm seeing problems.

Maybe we should narrow the lineage and compare three year old Apple pro laptop to current pro laptop, three year old Apple consumer laptop to current consumer laptop... OK, that holds up, but then the original outrage over the 17" Powerbook/13" Macbook seems naive...

 

[Techguy172]

The only problem I have with my MacBook is ram that's it other than that i have no issues weather it be graphics related or even processor I don't have any problems. It's fast built quite well I even use Photoshop without a budge no issues whatsoever. The graphics card is fine for even CS3 which uses the GPU. illustrator once again fine even flash works fine although i think flash still uses only CPU. Either way I'm happy with my purchase.

Maybe your expectations were too high I don't know but the GMA is fine for almost any task you throw at it. Anyway maybe you should have researched more and either bought a MacBook Pro or stuck it out with your powebook.

 

[hippo206]

.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

Jiddick ExRex, my apologies for this loose thread but I noticed in your signature that you now have a "perfect SR Macbook Pro". Does this mean that you got one with no yellowing? I remember you in earlier posts complaining about this issue.

Thanks.

You must have mistaken me for someone else I must have been sleeptyping (damn, not again)? My MBP is one of the best machines I have owned from Apple and luckily has no yellowing issue (my screen is an LG). It does however suffer from bad viewing angles that were problematic with an uncalibrated display. The screen in the top was reddish and the screen in the bottom was bluish when not calibrated and not viewed straight point blank on. Luckily some of the forum members' self-calibrated profiles fixed this to a degree that was acceptable.

And my definition of 'perfect' is whether or not it lives up to my expectations and if the few 'flaws' or 'kinks' are liveable.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

Photoshop was actually a point made to show that I didn't use the PB to it's full potential as it was processor wise, as stated. My issues with the MB are highlighted in the OP discussing flash games and other internet issues. The standard complaints with a weak video/audio integrated controller.

My bad. I didn't read your post thoroughly seeing as there was so much to keep track on

If I had experience with an SR MB I'd be able to give you a better opinion of what I think, but without the experience of someone who has specifically used one and is sure of how it performs with the newer graphics card in the rev D's it's hard for anyone to say whether or not is is enough for you. Really that is something only you can make the determination on. All I can say is buy as big as you can afford. If the MBP was an option financially I don't see why a better book could ever be a bad purchase and should always be a consideration. I can say I appreciated my flagship model PB much more than the MacBook.

That stands to reason according to what most of the other posters in this thread mentioned. You went from a flagship model to a consumer model and you had a bad experience and that's too bad. It would have been awesome for you if it had worked out fine and you would have gotten a lot of extras out of the macbook, smaller form, lighter weight, faster processor etc.
But it doesn't change the fact that the computer wasn't targeted for you but was still a miles away upgrade from the older consumer models!
The macbook still beat the crap out of the iBook videowise and was only a step up. Putting a m8400 gts in it wouldn't really make sense .

While I am uninterested in the "legalities" of it, as I am not a legality - I am a consumer, I will answer this. Apple does compare everything they do to their previous models in what Steve Jobs has said thousands of times in every keynote I can recall "The MAC Experience". The improved experience of better video and audio integration, the overall experience in general which is a direct reflection of how the book performs overall - which is heavily dependent on the graphics card in this model more than most since it is audio and video combined in a single unit which is built into the board permanently and provides no flexibility or ability to change the MAC experience provided of this book.

This is indeed a factor of "The IMPROVED MAC Experience" over the previous models.

.....and I still think in any form the MacBook is a good attempt.

Complaining to Apple about your bad decision and interpretation of emo-Steve giving a new emo-boom-keynote about a product won't do any good. The Mac-experience is based on what you expect and if you expected the entry-level consumer notebook to outperform your slightly older flagship model then that's your bad call for lack of research on the topic, not Apple's.

 

[mosx]

The MacBook has been a great laptop for me. Criticizing it for its GPU is not fair, it wasn't intended to be a gaming machine or a professional one. It is just for the regular student or home user who wants a nice laptop, but doesn't have or doesn't want to spend the extra money for the MacBook Pro.

Most users don't need anything better than the GMA 950.

The thing is, the average "student" or "home user" can get a PC for several hundred dollars less with a dedicated GPU. You can even get a system with a 2GHz C2D, 2GB of memory, dedicated GPU, and an HD DVD reader from HP right now for under $1,000 before taxes. It also has HDCP certified HDMI output, so you can hook it up to any HDCP certified TV and use it as a high def movie player. You can't even do that with the MBP.


Most users CAN benefit from a dedicated GPU. How? DVD playback. In Windows (not OS X, Apple does NOT take advantage of hardware capabilities for DVD playback), modern GPUs combined with DXVA and VMR9 can essentially take the entire MPEG-2 (or H.264/VC-1) video stream and do nearly all of the processing, as well as proper upscaling and deblocking. Not only does this affect CPU use (on a Core 2 Duo at 2GHz, but clocked down to 800MHz using power saving modes, CPU use is generally around 4-6% compared to the 20-30% on my 2.16GHz MacBook with DVD Player in Leopard), but it has a dramatic effect on image quality. It is a complete night and day difference. Especially if you have a system running Tiger or any pre-Leopard OS. DVDs in those OSes look god awful. But in Windows and software taking advantage of hardware players, DVDs look fantastic. Modern GPUs have full hardware support for all modern codecs. So an "average home user" or "student" that doesn't play games can still benefit from a low-end dedicated GPU in many other ways.

You can't use the "power saving" or "battery life" card either. The nVidia GeForce 8400M GS clocks down to 100MHz on both the core and the memory if needed. Battery life would be completely unaffected.

 

[one1]

Maybe we should narrow the lineage and compare three year old Apple pro laptop to current pro laptop, three year old Apple consumer laptop to current consumer laptop... OK, that holds up, but then the original outrage over the 17" Powerbook/13" Macbook seems naive...

You're still comparing and I never was. I simply gave a history. The entire point as outlined several times is flat out and simply that the computer has tons of potential, but is limited almost solely by it's graphics limitations. EVERYTHING ELSE is there to make a very nice computer with pounds of potential. Obviously why it WAS restricted...... as stated in the OP, was to keep people from sticking a big graphics card in it and having a mini with huge capability (a bad thing for the MBP line). That is the only issue that truly matters, the bottlenecking of something with this much potential.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

You're still comparing and I never was. I simply gave a history. The entire point as outlined several times is flat out and simply that the computer has tons of potential, but is limited almost solely by it's graphics limitations. EVERYTHING ELSE is there to make a very nice computer with pounds of potential. Obviously why it WAS restricted...... as stated in the OP, was to keep people from sticking a big graphics card in it and having a mini with huge capability (a bad thing for the MBP line). That is the only issue that truly matters, the bottlenecking of something with this much potential.

As much as I hate agreeing with you about this particular point, I do

 

[ribbonthecat]

I just upgraded from a 1.5Ghz PB to a 2.4 Ghz iMac. Even when the iMac had less RAM, it was miles ahead of the Powerbook on Photoshop, and other programs that you're describing, even when they were running in Rosetta. Granted, the iMac has a proper graphics card, but none of these applications require much Video RAM. I challenge your assertion that your Powerbook ran them better than your new Macbook. Unless I skipped something in your long first post, you don't seem to have much use for games, or anything else which could stress your graphics hardware.

But you seem to be a gentleman with a lot of money, judging from the Mercedes that you have. Why don't you just buy a Macbook Pro if the Macbook bothers you so much? Or stick with your Powerbook.

Also you say that you bought the Macbook for the coming of the new Millennium. The new Millennium came in 2001.

 

[one1]

I don't have a lot of money, I am just perpetually lucky. I've owned 3 store front mom and pop electronics shops, and a 6 year old internet business (engineering and design firm for aftermarket Lexus parts). I have my toys, but I still buy things that I consider what I "need" rather than what I can afford which would usually be more than what I need.

The decision maker for me was not having to deal with the metal case anymore. I loved to look at it and hated to handle it or keep it clean. Having many iBooks under my belt, I already knew I liked the plastic case. Infact this might be the part I am most pleased with on the book, no matter the flaws it brings.

Still none of this is relevant to the issue that caused this thread to be posted. I expected the book to perform better with the graphics card that came with it, apple sucked me in with huge specs in a small book and the promise they had done their homework and put the card in that would perform best (when in reality they went out of their way to choke it and not allow it to reach MBP status).

As far as your iMac goes, it has a much stronger power supply in a desktop unit that can supply a more steady voltage to the board and produce better results. Every desktop should outperform it's equivalent in notebook form and in most cases does. It's the flash games and higher loads of the internet demand in some places I go, as mentioned before, that give the MB issues. Also as mentioned previously your photoshop does not have sound and sound integration is the achilles heel of this card.

There are places you can go where a large flash game will draw the card down, turn your sound OFF on the computer, and it will operate smoothly.

 

[JackSwing]

wow...i really got so confused by all the names u guys had mentioned.i'm having problem 2 record anything with a line in microphone....just don't work. can anyone help me about it? and i wana transfer a lot of files from my old pc, but i can't connect it with my macbook....plz someone help me....

 

[eXan]

One1, you seem to be confused on what GPU does in the OS X system. Let me explain:

1) GUI. Part of the OS X's GUI is processed by the GPU. This is done on MacBooks just as fast as on systems with dedicated GPU. The only exception I can think of is slow Cover Flow full-screen animation in iTunes. Its perfectly smooth in window though.

2) Games. 3D games that use Open GL, not flash games.

3) Some pro applications: Aperture and Motion. Probably some high-end 3D modelling app like Maya too, but I have no experience with them.

Thats basically all. I noticed slowdown in the graphics (GUI) performance when I connected a 30" display to a Power Mac G5 Quad with the stock GeForce 6600, and things became worse when I added a 23" display to that 30". The Mac Pro with 7300 however was fine. So I guess to run THAT many pixels you need a faster GPU.

Photoshop (or any other CS app), Flash, viewing HD videos DOES NOT use the video card in OS X.

Also, you keep mentioning the sound problems with Vista, but its really not Apple's fault. They aren't supporting Windows on Macs, they just let you run it.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

wow...i really got so confused by all the names u guys had mentioned.i'm having problem 2 record anything with a line in microphone....just don't work. can anyone help me about it? and i wana transfer a lot of files from my old pc, but i can't connect it with my macbook....plz someone help me....

I suggest you make a new thread instead of posting in this. We're kind of discussing another topic.

 

[gazfocus]

No it simply means it works for you. Kudos on that. The issue of the GMA card isn't dependent on the apps as much as it is other areas of interest that have been outlined. One of the biggest factors being your photoshop does not contain audio, which affects the video side of this card in a dramatic way. On VISTA you can use a machine with this card on something such as a flash game and it will stutter and stumble with the audio on under USB drivers, but simply hit the mute button and it runs smooth as silk.

I think in light of this post, you should be blaming Microsoft, not the Macbook.

VISTA is a very graphic & power hungry OS and required very high specifications. Microsoft do not recommend running it on an integrated graphics card of any description. Maybe you should try Windows XP instead?

 

[mosx]

One1, you seem to be confused on what GPU does in the OS X system. Let me explain:

1) GUI. Part of the OS X's GUI is processed by the GPU. This is done on MacBooks just as fast as on systems with dedicated GPU. The only exception I can think of is slow Cover Flow full-screen animation in iTunes. Its perfectly smooth in window though.

2) Games. 3D games that use Open GL, not flash games.

3) Some pro applications: Aperture and Motion. Probably some high-end 3D modelling app like Maya too, but I have no experience with them.

Thats basically all. I noticed slowdown in the graphics (GUI) performance when I connected a 30" display to a Power Mac G5 Quad with the stock GeForce 6600, and things became worse when I added a 23" display to that 30". The Mac Pro with 7300 however was fine. So I guess to run THAT many pixels you need a faster GPU.

Photoshop (or any other CS app), Flash, viewing HD videos DOES NOT use the video card in OS X.

Also, you keep mentioning the sound problems with Vista, but its really not Apple's fault. They aren't supporting Windows on Macs, they just let you run it.

I think hes complaining about Flash games because, for some reason, Flash requires ungodly amounts of CPU power in OS X.. at least on the Intel Macs it does. Playing a Flash game for more than a couple of minutes will cause the CPU fan to ramp up to full speed and you can feel the system getting warmer by the second. Windows doesn't have this problem.

Oh and the GeForce 7300 was a weaker card than the GeForce 6600 Newer features doesn't always mean more powerful. Apple always charges more for lower end GPUs than you can get in Windows PCs. Just look at the current Mac Pro. It's right in line with that $1,000 to $1,500 "Apple Premium" that everybody knows and loves.

Anyway, you're forgetting that a modern GPU (not the Intel cards) can basically do full video acceleration. Not just the ancient HWMC and iDCT support that the GMA series has, but full decoding and deblocking of the video stream. Except that OS X doesn't take advantage of this. Even using just those ancient features on the GMA 950 (HWMC only) or the GMA X3100 (HWMC and iDCT) they'd be able to drop a good 5-10% off the over all CPU use when playing video. A modern GPU would be able to take the CPU use down to under 10% even when playing HD H.264 content.

Theres absolutely no reason for Apple not to include a dedicated GPU. The so-called "heat" issue has been debunked, and considering how hot the MacBooks and MacBook Pros get, I don't think another 1c would matter anyway. Battery life would remain unaffected, considering that both ATI and nVidia can clock their GPUs (and dedicated memory) down to 100MHz when not needed and then scale up as needed.

Apple only doesn't include a dedicated GPU because they are intentionally crippling the MacBook and want to hide the fact that they are greatly overcharging for the MBP. Everybody who knows anything about hardware knows that, for around the same prices, you can get PC hardware with dual GPUs and as much as a full gigabyte of GPU memory on higher end. With the MBP, for $2,000, you get the bottom of the mid-range series, and for $2500 you get the middle of the mid-range. If Apple even put so much as a lowly GeForce 8400M GS 128MB (as they should) in the MacBook, even average people would begin to see that they are spending far too much money on the MacBook Pro. Geez.. the more I talk about this and the more I think about how poorly Apple treats customers, the more I want to sell my MacBook.

Err. The only use for a better graphics card would be gaming, and personally, I couldn't care less on a laptop (who the hell plays anything on laptops anyways).

The fact of the matter is that Windows notebooks available for half as much as Apple notebooks can play games. For around $400 less than the MacBook after taxes you can get an HP with a dedicated GPU that can play modern games, with an HDMI output AND an HD DVD reader. The MBP doesn't even have HDMI out and can't play any HD discs.

I mean, sure, you can get video acceleration and all, I see that point, but I'm not crying over that. Not watching BR or MPEG4-encoded 1080p-material on a MB.

Apple doesn't take advantage of GPU video acceleration under OS X. So theres the possibility that the Core 2 Duo in the MBPs isn't up to the task of playing Blu-Ray or HD-DVDs. You'd need Windows for that and a software player that takes full advantage of GPU features.

 

[one1]

I think in light of this post, you should be blaming Microsoft, not the Macbook.

VISTA is a very graphic & power hungry OS and required very high specifications. Microsoft do not recommend running it on an integrated graphics card of any description. Maybe you should try Windows XP instead?

Oh I'm not running a dual boot. I keep windblows as far away from my MAC as humanly possible. I had (until a week ago) a Sony Vaio duo core machine with the exact same setup as my MacBook pretty much an identical machine, only windows. I figured the lady would like to have it, but she hates Vista as much as the rest of us do so I sold it and bought her a single core Vaio with XP Pro since she didn't need anything else.

 

[gazfocus]

Oh I'm not running a dual boot. I keep windblows as far away from my MAC as humanly possible. I had (until a week ago) a Sony Vaio duo core machine with the exact same setup as my MacBook pretty much an identical machine, only windows. I figured the lady would like to have it, but she hates Vista as much as the rest of us do so I sold it and bought her a single core Vaio with XP Pro since she didn't need anything else.

Sorry I assumed you were running Vista on your Mac. I would never do that....the poor mac I might have to put XP on mine (just for connecting it to the network at work) but will hardly ever use it.