Macbook vs. Macbook Pro.

[Phortiphy]

My parents are willing to buy a macbook, but not a pro. I want to know if it's worth chipping in the extra 1k for a pro.
The qualities I'm looking for:
-I'm most worried about is games. Is the macbook strong enough to play most games (is the pro?)?
-What (if anything) is better about the macbook than the pro?
-I'm not looking for a working computer, if it can run word, some graphics programs, I'm fine. I don't need some ultra powerful mathematics programs, and if I did, I'd use my Dad's computer.

Basically, I'm looking for a mac that can run games at a good rate, but also do anything I might need for High School (and maybe early college) level uses.

Obviously the pro is more geared toward work than fun, but does the boost go far towards gaming?

Thanks.

[chinkeeyong]

My parents are willing to buy a macbook, but not a pro. I want to know if it's worth chipping in the extra 1k for a pro.

k.

-I'm most worried about is games. Is the macbook strong enough to play most games (is the pro?)?

It's strong enough to play Aleph One if you're willing to forgo some of the detail in the enhancement packs, but it kind of sucks at playing moderately graphically intensive games such as Doom 3 or Half-Life 2. They're playable, they just lag a lot.

-What (if anything) is better about the macbook than the pro?

It's cheaper and has the classic white Apple look.

-I'm not looking for a working computer, if it can run word, some graphics programs, I'm fine. I don't need some ultra powerful mathematics programs, and if I did, I'd use my Dad's computer.

Basically, I'm looking for a mac that can run games at a good rate, but also do anything I might need for High School (and maybe early college) level uses.

non-Pro MacBook.

Obviously the pro is more geared toward work than fun, but does the boost go far towards gaming?

yes.

[treellama]

Don't buy a Mac laptop for games, that's just stupid. Get the regular MacBook, and instead of spending $1000 for the MBP with its weak video card, buy a cheap gaming PC or the game console of your choice.

I like the MacBook keyboard better (I'm hoping Apple switches to this on the Pro, like they did with the Air--I miss having a 15" screen), and it's definitely built much tougher. Since I know you're going to abuse it, the toughness thing is important.

[Phortiphy]

Don't buy a Mac laptop for games, that's just stupid. Get the regular MacBook, and instead of spending $1000 for the MBP with its weak video card, buy a cheap gaming PC or the game console of your choice.

Oh, damn. The problem is, my parents are doing this for school, so it *has* to be a laptop. I like macs, I find them more useful and easier to navigate than XP or vista, and when I get it, I don't have to worry about each individual component. My parents were actually thinking I'd get a $500-$700 windows machine of some sort, so they aren't ecstatic about doubling the price. I don't know, I just feel very wary of microsoft machines in general, and I probably won't be able to get a better machine (for gaming) at less than half the price. I haven't done any hardware research, as I haven't considered getting a PC until now (the overall plan was to get a mac and use boot camp for my gaming needs). I don't know which would be better for games, the $1300 macbook, or the $500-$700 PC? Plus, this is my first and as of right now only personal computer, so I want it to be all purpose to some degree, too (video and picture editing, etc.).

And when you say cheap gaming PC, what kind of price is considered cheap?

[$lave]

And when you say cheap gaming PC, what kind of price is considered cheap?

Cheap PC for sale cheap PC works great great deal PC for sale cheap

[treellama]

You could put together a half decent gaming PC for $500-700, that would blow away just about any laptop, particularly Macs, in gaming performance. If PC gaming is important to you, that's really the only way to go. While the Pro can run most modern games, you have to turn the graphics down a lot, and you'll still be out of luck when new stuff comes out with higher requirements. Plus it's so expensive!

There are Windows laptops with a bit better graphics in them (even some in the $1500 range), if all you care about is games and you *have* to have a laptop. But, gaming laptops don't make sense to me. You're not going to crack it open and start playing Quake 4 on the plane, or Bioshock in the car. So why pay twice as much for it?

I assume this discussion is about modern 3D games--for older games and non-3D games, the MacBook is going to handle them just fine. Aleph One, no problem. It can even barely play WoW if you turn everything down.

[thomaslivingston]

Before I ordered my new laptop my PC-hating mother offered to pay me a few extra hundred pounds to get a Macbook. The laptop I bought was about £850 and a Macbook Pro of the same specs would have been about £2000. Fuck that. Don't get Macs for gaming unless you're a rich bastard.

[JohannesG]

i'm a mac user and have been a mac user for more than 13 years. I love macs but I speak of experience. If you want to play the latest graphics intensive games, buy/build a pc or get a video game console. It's not even worth getting a macbook pro for games. It can play games but even a cheap self-built pc can kick the mbp's arse. I'm using a brand new MBP and I love it but it's simply not meant for games although it can play them, but not nearly as well as a PC for the half of the price.

for school work, common browsing, writing and light graphics/sound/misc. art work then I highly recommend a macbook. For more intensive art work & longer computer lifetime, (and less visible scratches ) then i recommend the MBP.

[RyokoTK]

Macs are not intended for serious gaming, period. If that's your primary focus, get a PC.

Macs have their strong points -- but gaming is not one of them.

[Shadowbreaker]

I think it depends on what games you are playing. Leopard really fucks a lot of stuff up, like any version of Photoshop. However, Aleph One works perfectly on it, and a new minimum macbook can easily load all of the high res graphics and stuff, doesnt take more than a few seconds to load. I wouldn't get a macbook pro just to play Marathon either. I have an mpb right next to me on which Ive play some netgames in like 2560x1270 or something resolution... it looks kinda fuzzy sometimes...

Word processing is no problem for macs either. Appleworks is pretty much all any basic student could need, and iWork is also an option.

Don't doubt the power of the newest macbooks either, they are crazy fast, despite being unable to render Terragen landscapes in only a few seconds. It's your choice though. Just be sure, if you get a macbook, to clean your screen ever once in a while

EDIT: 3d games are no problem either. I am a great fan of Warcraft 3, and it runs pretty well. Quake 3, Bugdom 2, Otto Matic, all that stuff runs fine.

[RyokoTK]

"Serious gaming" to me entails games that are a little more demanding than Quake 3 and Bugdom 2.

[Shadowbreaker]

"Serious gaming" to me entails games that are a little more demanding than Quake 3 and Bugdom 2.

Well, I just said those to get the idea across that Macs could infact handle 3d stuff. Obviously, there are many 3d games that don't work on macs because they simply aren't made for them. I suspect that Pfhortipfhy wants to do just a tiny bit more than play games on his new computer, though, which is why I'm recommending he get a mac. Plus, the limited amount of Mac games in comparison to Windoze games has never bothered me that much.

[visciom]

As the others have said, just get a PC if you want to play games. While Macs are great for work and multimedia, gaming isn't one of their strong points. And if you do get a PC, make sure it has a real video card, not some Intel integrated graphics chip. However, laptops in general aren't really meant for gaming.

[RyokoTK]

Shadowbreaker, you said you weren't going to post here anymore. http://forums.bungie.org/story/?noframes;read=56657

Anyway, your signature is too big, fix it.

[irons]

lol, Calm down.

[thomaslivingston]

Word processing is no problem for macs either. Appleworks is pretty much all any basic student could need, and iWork is also an option.

Appleworks has gotta be one of the worst pieces of software Apple have ever made. You're much better getting Neo Office.

[Wrkncacnter]

The problem is, my parents are doing this for school, so it *has* to be a laptop.

Games are out. Everyone can stop arguing about games now.

[VirtualX1]

If you're just going to play marathon and some old quake games then that would run perfectly fine (just dont use extreme source ports/mods such as darkplaces)

the limit of the macbook would probably be quake 4, anything more hardware demanding is likely to lag

also: you should take in mind that a PC with Windows is much more suitable for games than a mac is (unless apple decides to start taking games seriously, which they never really have)

[Crater Creator]

The MacBook is the worst computer Apple sells when it comes to gaming. It has the disadvantages that come with a laptop and it uses integrated graphics. So I do not recommend a MacBook for gaming.

I have a MacBook Pro. I use it for everything: word processing, web browsing, graphic work, heavy duty computation like software rendering, and indeed gaming. Between SheepShaver, X11, and BootCamp, I can theoretically run the vast majority of programs out there. I play the latest games like Team Fortress 2 and Unreal Tournament 3 under Windows, and other games under OS X. I have yet to be dissatisfied with the MBP's performance. That's not to say I never see problems: an enormous Aleph One map can lag just about any computer. But such problems have been due to poor design, not inadequate hardware. I don't play everything with every graphics setting turned up to the max, either: I typically play a game at 1024x768 resolution, which is high enough for me.

The Quake 3 engine, in particular, I've found to be superbly efficient. Any game based on this engine, and there are quite a few of them (even for Mac), will run just fine, even on a MacBook I'd estimate. Do keep in mind that older, non-Intel-native games can (but don't all) suffer in performance since they run under Rosetta translation. If you have the money, the MBP is a good machine. If you don't, and it really has to be a laptop... well, then you'll have to settle for something else. But again, the MacBook is among the worst choices for gaming.

[treellama]

I play the latest games like Team Fortress 2 and Unreal Tournament 3 under Windows

I don't play everything with every graphics setting turned up to the max, either: I typically play a game at 1024x768 resolution

Isn't this what I said? It'll play modern (9 month old games are the latest?) games if you turn the graphics down a lot.

[herecomethej2000]

My most personal opinion is that laptops are nothing but expensive paperweights and any serious gamer wouldn't bother shelling out $1500 for a rig that only cost $500 in desktop form. The problem with laptops is that, whatever laptop you buy, aside from memory and possibly an extra HD slot, you cant upgrade them. So whatever laptop you decide to buy, you are essentially stuck with that hardware till you chuck it. Really If you want to play games Id suggest making your own desktop computer, as you can usually do that allot cheaper.

However all that being said, I have owned a MBP for about a year now and as far as I'm concerned it is the best damn paperweight I have ever bought, but then I got a nice 300$ discount from my college and an I-pod nano thrown in. As to how the MBP handles games. It does so actually rather well. Contrary to "popular" belief, the Nvidia 8600 GT M is actually a pretty good midrange card and has been able to handle most hardcore games that I throw at it with pretty good results. I doubt you would be playing Crysis on it with top notch quality, but It can run BF 2142 and HL2 Orange Box games on high/max settings and still maintain a decent framerate. I'm pretty sure it performs better then any of the computers you will see on the shelves of Best Buy. (even their best computer though had a Nv 8500 and THAT is a mediocre card, I know because my brother bought it )

However, even though it can also potentially run anything under the sun, (I managed to triple boot leopard, linux ubuntu and Windows XP, on mine) I think the main reason for shelling out all that extra money is if you want to use the Apple Professional software such as Final Cut Pro or Logic and its there that the MBP really shines and performs magnificently, but I think for your uses to do simple school work, the MB is probably for you. Not owning one myself I cant say personally, but its a good laptop I hear.

[treellama]

Contrary to "popular" belief, the Nvidia 8600 GT M is actually a pretty good midrange card and has been able to handle most hardcore games that I throw at it with pretty good results. I doubt you would be playing Crysis on it with top notch quality, but It can run BF 2142 and HL2 Orange Box games on high/max settings and still maintain a decent framerate.

I have trouble keeping Ep. 2 above 30 fps on my 8800 GTS at 1600x1200 4xFSAA in places. There's no way you're getting a decent framerate with high quality settings on an 8600M.

I'm pretty sure it performs better then any of the computers you will see on the shelves of Best Buy. (even their best computer though had a Nv 8500 and THAT is a mediocre card, I know because my brother bought it )

You're certainly wrong there. Looking at Best Buy's website for 5 minutes I found at least four laptops available in the store with nvidia 9700 or 9800 class graphics in them, all of them around $1500. I'm sure there are equivalents with ATI too.

MBPs are competitive on almost every front except graphics and price, and the former is so easy to fix, it frustrates me that Apple doesn't do it. It's indefensible to ship your top of the line $2800 laptop with a previous generation midrange video card.

[Crater Creator]

Isn't this what I said?

It's similar to what you said, as are most of the replies thus far. We are in agreement on some points.

It'll play modern games if you turn the graphics down a lot.

We may differ on what's considered "a lot." As I said, I don't really need more than 1024x768 resolution, especially for games with FSAA. I tend to keep texture and model quality at the maximum. I should also mention, when I got a MBP you had the option of upgrading the default graphics card. It doesn't look like you have that option now, but on the other hand the graphics cards they offer now may be as good as the one I have.
Pfhortipfhy, if you're a more visual person, here's what UT3 looks like at the settings I normally use, which doesn't lag.

(9 month old games are the latest?)

In a manner of speaking, yes. As you likely know, AAA titles often come out in November for the holiday season, so games can be thought of as current for quite some time after the last holiday season. Also, TF2 and UT3 use the Source and Unreal 3 engines, respectively, and these engines are unlikely to be surpassed by something else for some time to come. A game's lifetime/relevance is also affected by its popularity, and these two games are popular in terms of critical reception and units sold.

[treellama]

We may differ on what's considered "a lot." As I said, I don't really need more than 1024x768 resolution, especially for games with FSAA.

Yeah, probably. If you have to turn the graphics down below what you get with a game console, that counts as "a lot" to me. The Xbox 360 can run UT3 at 1080p.

In a manner of speaking, yes. As you likely know, AAA titles often come out in November for the holiday season, so games can be thought of as current for quite some time after the last holiday season. Also, TF2 and UT3 use the Source and Unreal 3 engines, respectively, and these engines are unlikely to be surpassed by something else for some time to come.

The Source engine is 4 years old! And in the UT series, the original game has historically been a lot faster than ports that use the same engine. Compare Bioshock and UT3, for example. That said, I'm not really up on what's coming out this November, so it's hard to say what the 8600M will and won't handle. It already fails to run Bioshock and Crysis acceptably even at your 1024x768, without resorting to medium/low settings. Whether 2008's Christmas games will require more or less, someone who's paying attention better will have to answer.

The MBP has been a while without an update, so perhaps we'll see an update soon. I'll bet it still has a mid-range card in it

[herecomethej2000]

I have trouble keeping Ep. 2 above 30 fps on my 8800 GTS at 1600x1200 4xFSAA in places. There's no way you're getting a decent framerate with high quality settings on an 8600M.
You're certainly wrong there. Looking at Best Buy's website for 5 minutes I found at least four laptops available in the store with nvidia 9700 or 9800 class graphics in them, all of them around $1500. I'm sure there are equivalents with ATI too.

MBPs are competitive on almost every front except graphics and price, and the former is so easy to fix, it frustrates me that Apple doesn't do it. It's indefensible to ship your top of the line $2800 laptop with a previous generation midrange video card.

Well true, I checked a year ago so that is sure to have changed. As for the Orange box, that's just it, I don't use anti aliasing and I don't have the resolution so high not that a mbp monitor can go that high. 1440x900 is pretty good.

I'll bet it still has a mid-range card in it

Them and every other prefab computer on the market. At least with apple it won't be a low midrange. I swear I bought an HP laptop serveral years ago for a bit less then 1k. Radion express M200 chip in it and it was a pile of junk. It would crash on any program using OpenGL even with Aleph One it would suddenly slowdown with static effects enabled. I tried upgrading the driver but there was some kind of problem with it needing a new driver specially from HP, or at least ATI said they couldn't fix it. And HP refused to admit to the fact that there was a problem with the old one. Go figure At least with apple, you get some decent tech support, and all the computer models are, for the most part, standardized, so your not the only one having a problem if there is one.