Which Intel Mac?

[Dan Potter]

Taihen! This morning my wife tripped and her iBook went flying to the hardwood floor. This is the infamous iBook that was sent back for repairs 3 times for screen troubles, and we thought we'd finally seen the last of the problems with it. I guess you can never account for Murphy. :( It was actually working fine despite some case cracks but the screen went out this evening.

So, we might use this as an excuse to get an Intel Mac.

My question is, what are people's opinions on them so far? E.g. I know in the last round of PPC Macs, the iBook was generally considered a POS unless you got lucky. It was a much better deal to just spend an extra $200 or so and get a low end PowerBook. The MacBooks seem much closer to the MacBook Pros now, vs the old iBook vs PowerBook before.

I'm not super attached to laptops though (and the new machine would probably be mine), and I'm somewhat less inclined to buy Apple products with built-in LCDs after the last fun with the iBook. So I'm including the Mini and iMac here as well. I'm also planning to use Parallels and/or BootCamp with it because one of the big things I wanted to do on an Intel Mac is be able to boot up into XP to do day-job work. Reasonable 3D power would also be nice to be able to play some games and such (and my day job work involves some moderately hefty GL stuff).

Anyone have experiences with the different models and suggest good or bad things about them vs the others? I know this is a very vague question (apologies) but I'm just trying to get a feel for what people think is the good one to get right now.

[OneSadCookie]

Well, if you care about the 3D power, your choices if you want to buy now are the iMac and the MBP.

I know lots of people have had MBP problems, and they're also likely to get a substantial update in September or so, so I'd be inclined to wait until then before buying one. They're also very expensive for the compute power.

I have a 17" iMac, and I've been very happy with it. Zero problems, the GPU is good, the CPU is fast, the screen is nice, and the price is good. It's certainly what I'd recommend.

I laid hands on a black MacBook last week, and it seemed very nice -- nice size, nice look, nice screen (despite the shiny), nice weight, nice speed... but you've got the GMA 950, which'll be limiting when it comes to advanced 3D (eg. it doesn't support floating-point FBOs and the shader limits are low) and limiting when it comes to speed (like it or not, a Radeon 9600's fill rate isn't much for advanced 3D work, and the lack of hardware vertex processing means that vertex limits will be much lower). It's also effectively a 64M card.

Same kind of commentary goes for the Mini in desktop-land.

[Dan Potter]

Thanks for the comments. On the 3D side of things, if it's not totally awesome it'll probably still do fine for me. I mainly need something to work on when I'm at home or otherwise away from the office. My work machine right now has an nVidia GeForceFX 5600, which is a decent though not stunning card.

I agree the MBP is pretty pricey for what it is. Especially with the MBs coming in with somewhat reasonable specs this time around.

I might be able to wait a while, but it's kinda questionable right now. The dropped iBook's display came back up for us tonight but it goes off at random until turned off and back on. Seems the backlight has some sort of issue. So we can hook up an external display to it and be OK, but my wife needs the portability more than I do .. ergo I'm likely to lose my PowerBook to her :wacko:

Really sad too, it's got a beautiful picture while it's actually working, after all those returns :cry:

[igame3d]

I have the imac 17 inch, it pretty much rocks, but all the intel macs have an audio glitch or three. My sound went out for a week, came back after a total system reinstall. A search on Apple's forums found glitches in iTunes and many pre-universal games.

One of the grooviest things about the iMac is its dual monitor without mirror support, ooh yeah.

Just drill the imac to the table so you wife can't dash it when she is feeling the urge to upgrade again.

[BeyondCloister]

I have an entry level MacBook with the standard 512 (2 x 256) MB memory.

I have been using Parallels, in full screen mode, to do some VB.NET development using Visual Studio 2003 running on Windows XP service pack 2. The performance has been stunning and after a while I even forget I'm running on a virtual machine. Various productivity software I have run on it has also performed correctly.

I cannot comment on OpenGL performance as that is not something that is of interest to me, however I may be testing an OpenGL base product later this week.

If you are not happy with Macs with built in LCD then may I ask why you are considering the iMac?

[Zwilnik]

How well are you finding Visual Studio is compiling using Parallels Andrew? So far our plan has been to swap out our clunky, unreliable and energy wasting Athlons for Mac mini duals running Boot Camp, but if Visual Studio is fast enough under Parallels I can justify replacing my G5 at the same time and go back to having just one Mac on my desk again (although probably a MacBook Pro).

[AnotherJake]

Tough call! I agree with everything said here already so I'll just add/reinforce a few short thoughts. If you're looking for bang for the buck and portability, I think the MacBook is the way to go. If you're looking at popularity to judge relative value, the MacBook seems to be selling like crazy from what I've seen. Here at iDG there seem to be several. Not at iDG, I personally know three people who just bought a MacBook, and three people who bought Minis (including one for myself). Like was already said here, I agree that it seems like the MBP is a bit overpriced for what it is. However, if you're looking for performance per dollar and not portability, it appears that the iMac is the clear winner, with great features and very acceptable graphics capability.

As a somewhat off-topic side-note: One of my friends installed the Vista beta on his Mini the other night and it works pretty good (it's obviously still a beta), but you don't get Aero Glass right now because they have a minimum video memory requirement of 128 MB. Oh, and plus, you have to clean install OS X if you want to get rid of it at this point because Boot Camp doesn't specifically support it yet. It seems likely that `official' support for Vista with Boot Camp will eventually happen, but right now it is considered a bit of a hack to get it going. Not that Vista really matters, but I thought I'd mention it if you're planning on doing Windows work with it into the future. YMMV.

[Dan Potter]

If you are not happy with Macs with built in LCD then may I ask why you are considering the iMac?

It's not that I'm unhappy with Macs with built-in LCDs, because as long as they're functional they're beautiful. I'm just leery of it after having read so many stories about the "white spots" and having had a run-in with them personally (and I guess now Apple's official line on it is that the problems are user fault). That mainly seems to be a laptop thing. Besides that it's a simple cost/benefit calculation: I could spend e.g. $1100 for a MB that has a built-in LCD, or buy basically the same machine without it for $800 as a Mini. $300 for an LCD thrown in which may or may not last, plus real portability? Sure. On the same idea, I don't think I'd buy an MBP if I had the money just because the LCD going bad in it would be considerably more of a money sink.

[AnotherJake]

Well, I'd recommend tacking a hundred onto both the Mini and MacBook for memory, but what you're describing is similar to the rationale that I went through as well. I already had a 20" LCD and didn't need the portability. To my way of thinking, the $300 difference was 300 off an Xbox 360 (which I just got yesterday BTW :) )

[BeyondCloister]

How well are you finding Visual Studio is compiling using Parallels Andrew? So far our plan has been to swap out our clunky, unreliable and energy wasting Athlons for Mac mini duals running Boot Camp, but if Visual Studio is fast enough under Parallels I can justify replacing my G5 at the same time and go back to having just one Mac on my desk again (although probably a MacBook Pro).

I am going to try and build some real applications on Thursday. This will give me a good idea of performance and also the OpenGL performance.

I'm not too concerned if compile times turn out to be slightly slower than my Vaio. My main concern is how well it actually performs while actually using the IDE and doing lots of typing, code completion and stuff like that.

[Zwilnik]

I am going to try and build some real applications on Thursday. This will give me a good idea of performance and also the OpenGL performance.

I'm not too concerned if compile times turn out to be slightly slower than my Vaio. My main concern is how well it actually performs while actually using the IDE and doing lots of typing, code completion and stuff like that.

I'm in the same situation that slightly longer compile times aren't a major worry, just as long as it doesn't fall over on more exotic sdks that's fine :)

An iMac could be a good option for me, although I'd probably wait a revision and unfortunately they don't have Firewire 800 which I kind of need.

[kelvin]

On the upgradability side, people are already sticking early Core 2 Duos in MacMinis...
iMacs have the same socket, so I imagine sticking a Core 2 in the iMac is just as trivial.

The benches... well, Core 2 Duo MacMini doing Quicktime encoding 15% faster than Dual 2.5 PMG5... 'nuf said.

[Dan Potter]

I stopped off at the college bookstore downtown and looked at the iMac and MacBook. Probably a bad idea. :D Especially since if my wife buys it with her student discount you get a free iPod Nano right now. Getting that close to Apple toys with a wallet in hand is never safe. :)

They both looked pretty awesome to me though. That nice big screen and Radeon X1600 is real tempting in the iMac. ;) I'd be interested in hearing about Andrew's real-world GMA950 experience too though. Benchmarks online seem to give it pretty horrid scores even compared to current "value" chips.

[OneSadCookie]

Remember that current benchmarks tend to focus on Doom III and Quake IV, which are a particularly poor case for the GMA 950. UT2k4 or HL2 benchmarks are more likely to tell the "real" story.

[Dan Potter]

Indeed, the Ars Technica benchmarks seem to give the MB much better ratings (better than the MBP in a lot of cases).

Out of curiosity has anyone tried running Oblivion on any of these machines? I know it's supposed to be pretty hefty hardware requirement wise, but there are also patches out there to tone that down quite a bit.

[hams_]

i had the original PowerBook 12" and got a Macbook 2Ghz, 2GB and 80GB hdd. it's pretty sweet. the screen brightness is amazing compared to the old PB. the extra weight is a bit of downer. i don't use my Mac for any work stuff just personal stuff. OpenGL performance remains a question. i don't use it for any real gaming except what i download from here. i have a feeling it still bests my old PB in every department. i'm still hoping for a Mini that has a better GPU at some point.

kevin

[AnotherJake]

Out of curiosity has anyone tried running Oblivion on any of these machines? I know it's supposed to be pretty hefty hardware requirement wise, but there are also patches out there to tone that down quite a bit.
Being as how I've been playing Oblivion all day on the 360, I would say, forget it... It's all non-stop-lots-of-geometry-plus-bump-mapping, not to mention fog effects and friends. I've seen some screen-shots of the trimmed down versions and I strongly think that if that would satisfy you then you're better off playing the older Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind if you haven't played it yet. If you want to play Oblivion in reality you have two choices: 1) $2000 Wintendo or 2) $400 Xbox 360 (which ends up being $500 with Oblivion and sales tax).

The max capability of my Intel Mac Mini Core Duo in WinXP is Delta Force BHD/Team Sabre, which are last-gen. The saddest sore-spot with the GMA 950 is the lack of hardware T&L which just kills it for game requirements as I've seen. Don't ever plan on squeezing a real modern game like Oblivion into a GMA 950. I don't know how an iMac would fare, but even then I would be a bit skeptical for the higher end stuff...

[BeyondCloister]

Okay I have now used Parallels on my MacBook for some real-world applications. Here are my findings and opinions:

Performance is being compared against:
* a desktop Pentium 4 2.8 GHz, 1 GB RAM, Intel 82865G with 64 MB.
* a year old IMB laptop Pentium 1.8 GHz, 1 GB RAM,Mobility Radeon 9600 with 64 MB.

As stated before, the MacBook is entry level with 2 x 256 MB RAM. The virtual machine was running fullscreen at a resolution of 1200 x 800 with memory limited to 296 MB.

* Parallels is only detecting the USB ports as USB 1.0. I assume this is a result of its beta status.
* Compiling of code using Visual Studio .NET was faster than the desktop and similar to the laptop.

The application tested involves loading lots of geographic data, displaying it in layers and then manipulating the data using calculations that are performed across the entire dataset. The data is displayed using an OpenGL based 2D engine.

* Loading of a dataset took 23 seconds under Parallels. This is faster than then desktop PC but a couple of seconds slower than the laptop.
* Navigating around the data was faster than both the desktop and laptop. All very smooth and very useable.
* Manipulation of the data also out performed the desktop and was similar to the laptop.

Next we tested loading in a known memory busting dataset.

As expected, we got an out of memory alert.
At this point the Windows environment stopped responding properly - I was even unable to bring up Task Manager to shut down the application. Parallels itself was still responding so I had to reset the virtual machine. In terms of comparison against a Windows computer I would not see this as a problem as the desktop PC behaves in exactly the same way. So you could say Parallels emulates Windows too well.

Actually using the Windows environment was not a problem - again it responded faster than the desktop and similar to the laptop.

My conclusion is that using Windows XP running on a beta version of Parallels is similar to using a year old laptop which was of decent spec at the time and cost about £1000.

If I had the choice then I would use the MacBook setup for the Windows development work I do and this is the view of others who saw the demonstrations.

I think it would be safe to assume that a MacBook upgraded to 2 GB memory and running a release version of Parallels would improve performance.

Your requirements may be different than ours though so I would suggest you try before you buy.

Note: There are no DirectX drivers for Parallels. I tried to play a friend's game but it failed to run due to lack of DirectX driver. This was not of concern to me so I did not look any further.

[BeyondCloister]

I have now purchased the full release of Parallels. I will run the above tests again either later today or tomorrow to see how big an impact it has.

[ravuya]

Oblivion apparently runs reasonably well in medium settings on the X1600 in the Macbook Pro according to anecdotal evidence.

[AnotherJake]

And just as a sanity check:

Cheapest MacBook Pro (Oblivion on medium settings) - $2000
Most Expensive MacBook (no Oblivion) - $1500
Difference: $500
Xbox 360 (Oblivion on high settings): $400

If I were to choose between a MacBook and a MacBook Pro based only upon wanting to play better games, I would choose the cheaper MacBook and an Xbox 360, which clearly seems to be a better value. Plus you could use the left over hundred to buy `a' game for the Xbox 360 :) Just one though! They are awful darned expensive still...

[Zwilnik]

And just as a sanity check:
Plus you could use the left over hundred to buy `a' game for the Xbox 360 :) Just one though! They are awful darned expensive still...

You can always spend the money on games from Live Arcade ;)

[gatti]

My conclusion is that using Windows XP running on a beta version of Parallels is similar to using a year old laptop which was of decent spec at the time and cost about £1000.Wow, this is excellent news. This confirms the direction that I'll go regarding which virtualization software to use. By the way, have you tried browsing the web using Internet Explorer or FireFox under Windows XP within Parallels? How's the performance specifically on Flash-heavy sites?

[BeyondCloister]

Wow, this is excellent news. This confirms the direction that I'll go regarding which virtualization software to use. By the way, have you tried browsing the web using Internet Explorer or FireFox under Windows XP within Parallels? How's the performance specifically on Flash-heavy sites?

I have used Internet Explorer, via wireless network, but not any Flash-heavy sites as I tend to try and avoid them.

With the exception of trying to run a game, everything has run just like using a normal PC.

If you care to suggest a site then I will visit one once I have installed the full version.

[gatti]

If you care to suggest a site then I will visit one once I have installed the full version.http://www.nick.com/

[Dan Potter]

Cheapest MacBook Pro (Oblivion on medium settings) - $2000
Most Expensive MacBook (no Oblivion) - $1500
Difference: $500
Xbox 360 (Oblivion on high settings): $400

Cheapest iMac, Oblivion on medium settings - $1300. :) The iMac is basically a desktop version of the nicest MBP, looking at the specs. Minus the FW800 port I guess, but I don't use FW.

Some more upcoming expenses came up after a visit to the dentist yesterday so I dunno if I'm gonna be getting any new computers in the near future after all. :( Guess I have to get myself in gear and make some actual stuff to sell. :D

Oh, BTW:

(which ends up being $500 with Oblivion and sales tax)

Not in Oregon! Whoo hoo! All those income taxes are good for something ;)