Noozer said:
Hrm... they could have use a 3.5" hard drive and saved $100 right there.
That would have more than covered the cost for a real video chipset.
So you're saying that anyone who uses a computer professionally needs to
have at least one Windows box to play games?
No, anyone who is serious about playing games needs to have at least one
Windows box for playing games.
I don't want six different
computers in my house to do six different tasks.
Then don't. Geez, nobody's making you play games.
Even Grandma is going to
want a machine that can play Quake 3 reasonably well for when the kids
come over. (Been there, it's true).
I have no idea how much Mac horsepower you need to play Quake 3, but it
plays fine on my old Radeon 8500 on an Athlon machine.
Gaming isn't the only thing that benefits from good video hardware.
So what else that is in common use benefits from 3d acceleration?
I'm sure that Apple wouldn't have used that chip if ATI didn't play nice
with the drivers.
A computer that "does email, surfing and word processing" isn't a computer
any longer. It's an appliance. Guess Apple should open up a subsidiary
called "Appli" ? : )
Depends on your definitions. Lawrence Livermore or Sandia would have gladly
paid several million dollars for that "appliance" in 1980.
There are a lot of tasks that do _not_ benefit from having a fast video
board and in fact do not require one at all, that go far beyond "email,
surfing, and word processing".