Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Macbook underpowered for (full) Leopard?

The biggest question, by far, whenever a new OS is released is: "Will it work on my system?"

Isn't it ODD that Apple didn't explicity state that the OS will be fine on current MB and MBP and iMac? That would calm things down a lot.

The reality is that newer OS's work best on newer hardware. I don't think people are so much worried about whether their 5 year old mac can run leopard (it will, but I promise you it will not be as smooth or sexy as on a modern machine). People are worried about whether the MB or Mini they bought this past year, or are going to buy tomorrow, will be 100% ok with this OS- specifically due to the GMA950.

The fact that Apple isn't stating explicitly that Leopard will run on the MB with smooth eyecandy and no stuttering or gracphics glitches may be telling.... or may simply be a very uncharacteristic slip up (from a company which is very scripted)
 
If the GMA950 wouldn't run 10.5, they would have updated the GPU on the three lines of machines that use them. Apple won't leave the 950 users with a poorly-running version of Leopard. Even looking at the demos, it doesn't seem like it needs a super GPU to run the new interface. Some person who is attending WWDC will have 10.5 beta installed on a macbook in the very near future and I am sure that there will e no problems with the GUI.
 
APPLE: how about an official statement saying Leopard runs fully on Macbooks?

This can be ended in one second.
Apple makes the statement.

If they don't, why aren't they?
 
akonradi said:
If the GMA950 wouldn't run 10.5, they would have updated the GPU on the three lines of machines that use them. Apple won't leave the 950 users with a poorly-running version of Leopard. Even looking at the demos, it doesn't seem like it needs a super GPU to run the new interface. Some person who is attending WWDC will have 10.5 beta installed on a macbook in the very near future and I am sure that there will e no problems with the GUI.
Click to expand...

This is the smartest thing anyone has said today.
Let's just wait and see what the WWDC developers who have a copy in their hands have to say (are they allowed to talk about Leopard?)

And quite honestly, I give it until tomorrow until Leopard is on some torrent site somewhere.
 
akonradi said:
Yes, there is a difference between an integrated notebook GPU and a dedicated desktop card.
Click to expand...

They do the same thing. There was also a GeForce2 based mobile part.

If I were arguing it can't match current high end desktop cards, I could see your point. but I'm not. I'm not even arguing it can't match today's budget cards.

It can't match *budget* cards that were *low end* 7 years ago. At a time when mobile processors are faster than most mid-range desktops from a couple of years ago.

Does that not strike you as being abysmal?

How about if I compare it to ATI's x200 or nVidia's 6150 integrated solutions? GMA950's several times slower than those are, too -- and you could hardly call those gaming parts.

I don't know if you recall, but even Jobs used to ridicule Intel's integrated solutions... up until he started selling them ;)

I never said that the GMA950 was good, I just said that it's not as bad as people here make it seem to be. We can compare it with the nvidia 8000 series, fine. The 8600M will come out better every time, but that does not mean that the GMA950 is not good enough for Leopard, nor does that make it a bad GPU.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree then, since I maintain it is a very poor GPU.

That you'd bring up the 8600M is laughable. I'm not suggesting Apple should be putting that - which is arguably the best low power mobile GPU on the market today - in a MacBook. I'd just like somethng that's not a complete joke.

I agree it'll work for Leopard. The majority of x86 Macs out there are using the GMA950, so it has to -- and that's a major part of my beef with the GMA950. For as long as it's dominant, it'll stop all sorts of useful stuff being worthwhile to be developed, or from becoming mainstream, because the majority can't use it. Which sucks for everyone, pretty much.

There's all sorts of interesting uses for GPUs, from better user interface stuff to general-purpose computing executed on today's highly capable, highly parallel GPUs.

It's not all about gaming. The x200/6150 ain't gonna give you much for gaming, but they will run your desktop a lot better...

That's why there's those of us who dislike GMA950. Anyway, I think we've made our respective views clear on the subject ;)
 
Well, however we choose to think, the GMA950 isn't really designed for high end use. It does its job well without being the best thing on the market. All that I'm trying to get across is that the 950 will be more than adequete for 10.5 and that the new Macbook Pro won't be the only machine running it.
 
Episteme said:
I agree it'll work for Leopard. The majority of x86 Macs out there are using the GMA950, so it has to -- and that's a major part of my beef with the GMA950. For as long as it's dominant, it'll stop all sorts of useful stuff being worthwhile to be developed, or from becoming mainstream, because the majority can't use it. Which sucks for everyone, pretty much.

There's all sorts of interesting uses for GPUs, from better user interface stuff to general-purpose computing executed on today's highly capable, highly parallel GPUs.

It's not all about gaming. The x200/6150 ain't gonna give you much for gaming, but they will run your desktop a lot better...

That's why there's those of us who dislike GMA950. Anyway, I think we've made our respective views clear on the subject ;)
Click to expand...

What features would you like to see that couldn't be properly implemented on a GMA950?
 
akonradi said:
Well, however we choose to think, the GMA950 isn't really designed for high end use. It does its job well without being the best thing on the market. All that I'm trying to get across is that the 950 will be more than adequete for 10.5 and that the new Macbook Pro won't be the only machine running it.
Click to expand...

The problem with GMA950 isn't that it's not designed for the high end, it's that it is quite literally the worst solution on the market today. If it were from anyone but Intel, no-one would touch it with a bargepole.

I believe we're in violent agreement that Leopard will run on it :)
 
zub3qin said:
Isn't it ODD that Apple didn't explicity state that the OS will be fine on current MB and MBP and iMac? That would calm things down a lot.
Click to expand...
On this score, no it's not odd that Apple isn't explicitly stating what will and what won't work with the next OS at this stage.
 
Episteme said:
I believe we're in violent agreement that Leopard will run on it
Click to expand...
hehe...Well, whatever one's thoughts on the GMA950 are, Apple has too many of them out (and likely still will in October) to blow off software support for machines so recent, especially for a huge OS update. If they were to take away full support for the chip, then they will turn into exactly what they are calling today's Microsoft.
 
Episteme said:
I don't know if you recall, but even Jobs used to ridicule Intel's integrated solutions... up until he started selling them ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, and he also rubbished solid state MP3 players and their manufacturers... until Apple released the shuffle.
 
akonradi said:
hehe...Well, whatever one's thoughts on the GMA950 are, Apple has too many of them out (and likely still will in October) to blow off software support for machines so recent, especially for a huge OS update. If they were to take away full support for the chip, then they will turn into exactly what they are calling today's Microsoft.
Click to expand...

The GMA950's the most common Mac GPU. It ain't going anywhere... having said that, Vista runs fine on GMA950 too ;)
 
psychofreak said:
It will, the next integrated graphics chip will be that cheap very soon, and is MUCH better :)
Click to expand...

X3100? It's not much better. In fact, currently, it's sometimes slower... and the drivers are pretty buggy to boot.

However, I chose my words poorly. What I meant was, support for it wasn't going anywhere. My own fault, I agree.
 
brock2621 said:
You think it will be powerful enough for the Ultimate Version?!?!!?!? PLEASE SAY SO!! ;)
Click to expand...

I think you're stuck with Mac OS X Ultimate Home Basic Starter Edition, I'm afraid -- no Mac OS X Premium Ultimate 64bit Enterprise for you! ;)
 
brock2621 said:
You think it will be powerful enough for the Ultimate Version?!?!!?!? PLEASE SAY SO!! ;)
Click to expand...
Ultimate Version?!?!?!? There's an ultimate version? Maybe I would have known that if Apple would upload the keynote video already!

I bet it's going to cost just as much as the basic, business, and premium versions.....$129 maybe.:rolleyes:
 
Many, many people, don't play games. I haven't played a single game in OS X in my MB in a year.
With BootCamp I have played The Sims 2, and it played acceptable for the purpose I want it. I don't want to be able to play "Half-Life 3 Reloaded" at top graphics, firstly, because playing in a 13" screen would be a pain, secondly, because I have a desktop for that, and finally, because I am not into games.

And a lot of users are like me.


And for those who think Leopard would not function smoothly in a MB, just think how bad Apple would be seen if they made that their best-selling Mac unable to run Leopard.
 
Considering that the demo's they are showing.......show it running gorgeously on a macbook, I'd say it will run absolutely fine.

And seriously....there's is ABSOLUTELY no way the macbook will be unable to run leopard....I mean what, the computer was built 4 months before Leopards release?

If it doesn't run it then apple is screwed.....and what kinda company would screw itself??
 
Episteme said:
Yup. He has... ah.. "interesting" changes of heart.
Click to expand...
I would say, it's more of a case of business expediency. In the case of the solid state MP3 players, they may have cons, but they had pros too - plus, they were starting to form a sector of the MP3 player market. In the case of the latter, it was in the relatively budget area (a section where Apple doesn't normally compete). By competiting in the lower end, as well as the higher end, of the MP3 market, Apple was able to take the major market share.

When SJ was rubbishing solid state players, Apple would have been working on its own versions - at least some of the time. He could have either said:

a) Solid state has its own advantages, so Apple are working on bringing on its own players to match the offerings of our competitors (i.e. Apple are playing catch-up).

or

b) Solid state is rubbish, here's why you should buy our products instead (and then later extol the virtures of solid state when you - not your competitors - can make money out of it).

When the GMA 950 was introduced into Apple products, the company did a pretty good job saying why it was a good fit for its line. Now, I'm not going to go into why it leaves much to be desired (you've done a pretty good job doingthat :p ), but in the MB say, it was a good business decision in some ways - e.g. lower unit cost, lower energy consumption/better battery life, some customers would buy a more expensive MBP that some didn't need.
 
Igantius said:
I would say, it's more of a case of business expediency.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely.

I was being deliberately euphemistic and vague, since airing my own views would would likely be ... ah... flamebait to some, and it's not a topic I feel like debating. It's bad enough with the GMA950 wars -- as it is, many Bothan spies... um.. okay, perhaps not.

There's no doubt Jobs is superb at pushing whatever his company happens to be doing at any given time, and that they've made a lot of right decisions since his return. The way Apple's turn around under his second tenure is nothing short of incredible in many ways -- and I'm rather glad he came back, since he brought NeXTStep -- which is what got me on board :)
 
Episteme said:
I was being deliberately euphemistic and vague...
Click to expand...
Didn't think you were blaming it momentary madness!

I brought that up to illustrate that these type of decisions are made (well, that's probably not always true!) pragmatically and are not always as cut and dry as some people maintain - as I say, the GMA 950 move by Apple was arguably a decent business decision.. and one not going to be jeopardised by Leopard (just to get this back on track!).
 
akonradi said:
Come on, it's not a dedicated graphics card. Integrated graphics aren't meant to be the best GPUs ever.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, no one's saying it's supposed to be the best GPU ever, we're saying it's worse than a budget part from over half a decade ago! That's NUTS. As others have said, Intel's graphics wouldn't be used by anyone if they weren't by Intel.

And as others also pointed out, Steve Jobs made fun of integrated graphics-rightfully so-right up until the point he started using them. I'm still very disappointed they're doing that. For the prices, they could include a real low-end GPU in every one of their systems.

All the rumors prior to the Intel switch said we'd never see garbage Intel graphics on a Mac :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back