Does the white MacBook really turn orange? - Page 3

Yes, because C|Net is completely unbiased against Apple.\\ Their one article on BootCamp running on an iMac says the Radeon X1600 shares memory with the system, which is incredibly inaccurate. The iMac performed on par with the PCs in everything but the Doom 3 test. Which isn't surprising as I believe the XPS400 comes with a better video card, not to mention the fact that it comes with a Desktop video card and not a mobile card like the iMac. They don't specify which video card is in the XPS, however. http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Boot_C...2.html?tag=nav Their article about BootCamp running on a PowerBook shows even less divergence between the PCs and the Mac except in the Doom 3 test. http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6484737.html One can only assume that not only is the video card in the PowerBook underclocked but so is the card in the iMac as the x1600 is supposed to do much better than that...as can bee seen by the Acer in the second article. Then there's this review which compares the Mac with reviews of some computers benchmarked by PCMagazine. This review was made before BootCamp was released so it doesn't even have full driver compatibility yet. http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03...re_duo_laptop/ If I felt like spending more time googling I'm sure I could find other favourable reviews, not to mention ones with the video card at full clock. The Intel Macs run just as well as comparable PCs.

The MBP may have performed nearly as well but it lost to everything non-Apple. As I said in my last post, the Windows notebooks performed better, and the links you provided prove just that. When a sports team wins by 1 point it is still a win.

It doesn't matter if CNet is biased or not as most non-Mac sites don't particularly care for Macs. Benchmarks don't lie. They know no bias.

Why would I want to buy a notebook with a gimped video card? I have to go out of my way (probably voiding the warranty) to get it up to par as the same card in a Windows-based notebook... and I pay more at that. Not worth it.

I find it hilarious the Macbook beats out other notebooks (with slower CPU's mind you) in running a Photoshop script, and that makes it the fastest XP notebook

Oh jesus mary and josephine...when the difference is 2 to 2.05 you didn't really lose.

And nowhere did I say they were faster than PCs; I said they performed the same as or faster. Obviously not even other PCs with the same specs are going to perform exactly the same from each other either, which means there is no clear winner no matter how you look at it because it's all on the order of a couple seconds or a couple frames difference.

I agree with you about the video card, I don't like that Apple has underclocked it, but even running at 300MHz compared to it's normal 400 or so it's still a powerful card. You just have a different idea about gimped than other people do.

And why is it funny when almost every site uses a series of Photoshop actions in their benchmarks? Granted just the photoshop benchmark doesn't prove anything, but it's still a pretty standard way to judge performance.

So all this from a post about white macbooks turning orange?