Macbook underpowered for (full) Leopard?

[Wolfpup]

Keeping a thread on-topic, but this is forum?!?

Interesting that you mentioned about the mini – the MU review I quoted above was from a mini review when Apple refreshed the machines – and why you can see stuff like the ripple effect with the MB that you didn’t with your mini.

I particularly agree with what you say re: orginal shipping date of Leopard.

There's a difference between the effects you can see on the Mini versus the Macbook?

Why would that be? They're the same integrated video, aren't they?

Dosen't the 950 fully support at least 10.4's effects?

 

[Igantius]

There's a difference between the effects you can see on the Mini versus the Macbook?

Why would that be? They're the same integrated video, aren't they?

Dosen't the 950 fully support at least 10.4's effects?

If you read the post above mine, which I was responding to, it was comparing the performance of the earlier mac minis (that had a video card) to that of MacBooks. Here’s the post:

Going back on topic for a minute, my macbook C2D with 1 gig Ram and the much lamented 950 does visual effects like the ripple on dashboard, where my g4 mini with a dedicated 32Mb ATI something or other does not. I also never noticed the little things like semi transparent menu's on the mini, where I see them on the macbook.
Which would lead me to summise dedicated != better than intgrated.
Also, the macbook is (afaik) the best selling Apple computer. Laptop sales are higher than their desktop sales. Laptops still ship today with the 950, leopard was originally due June latest, and hardware revisions are not affected by software revisions, as in, the leopard delay would not make apple delay a hardware revision. Therefore apple was originally intending to ship leopard on a 1.66 CD with 512Mb RAM and a GMA950 (the current low end mini). Therefore leopard MUST run on that.
Also I'm sure I've seen somewhere that leopard runs on a G4.

At the end of the day, the macbook is an incredible machine. it's very very fast. From any other manufacturer it would be a high end machine. With apple it's a low end machine purely because they start higher up that others in terms of quality of processor etc they use. If it'll run vista, it'll run leopard easy.

No one was disputing the fact that mac minis and MBs both currently utilise GMA 950. DrAtheist was pointing out that while his MM couldn’t handle the full visual effects of Tiger, while his MB can – as I’m sure you know, the MMs with video cards weren’t Core Image-ready, while the ones with integrated graphics were (as the MU review I quoted earlier pointed out.)

 

[Wolfpup]

If you read the post above mine, which I was responding to, it was comparing the performance of the earlier mac minis (that had a video card) to that of MacBooks. Here’s the post:

Okay, thanks! I just saw your post and thought maybe there was some difference between the current Mac Mini and Macbook in terms of video. Didn't realize it was talking about the G4 Mac Mini.

I guess Apple's newer technologies must require DX 9 class features? (I mean through OpenGL of course, both that class of hardware features.) That's cool-and actually similar to what Microsoft's doing, come to think of it.

 

[Igantius]

Okay, thanks!...

No probs - it wasn't very clear from the quote by the time I culled it...

 

[66217]

Just realized this thread would make the people who say the MB is not capable of running Leopard know that they are wrong.

 

[docc]

Macbook is Apple's bestseller, so they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't support the Macbook. I'm quite sure that leopard will be able to run in all its glory on the macbook.

 

[yetanotherdave]

Just realized this thread would make the people who say the MB is not capable of running Leopard know that they are wrong.

I was just about to post that, also worth noting, they are running on a Core Duo not a Core 2 Duo macbook, and have not reported any instances of it not running something as advertised.