Going to be picking up a Macbook Pro. I do normal stuff on my machines...iApps, some Photoshop (not much), good bit of FreeHand MX work, watch movies and some editing with the video cam, some games-occasionally Doom 3, but holding out for Diablo III. Any reason why I would want 256mb video ram over 128mb?

Stavs

lust

games

expand

New games will never require less VRAM.

---

I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making
him carry me, and yet assure myself and others
that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his
lot by all possible means — except by getting off
his back. - Leo Tolstoy, novelist and Philosopher
(1828-1910)

so you can run your monitor at 640x480 in 24 bit mode

---

The central question we have been trying to address is simply this:

Is the card in a MacBook Pro, PROCESSOR-wise, the same?

In otherwords - - polygons per microsecond or whatever the measurement is - and
is the RAM just a function, at that level, of how large a secondary external screen can be run?

I don't know the specs of the various MacBooks - I seem to recall an ATI 1600 or something like that.

If that is the case -- is the issue over RAM meaningless if you are going to use the laptop screen for virtually everything?

The larger VRAM option in the last PowerBook yielded a small performance increase in terms of Frames-Per-Second on some games, while played at certain higher resolutions. Check out www.barefeats.com for some benchmarks.

If you think you fall into that category then you might want to get the extra VRAM, otherwise it will be useless except perhaps as a selling point down the road.

so you can run Vista, of course

---

---------------


In the words of DharmaDog: "it may or may not be utter horse@#$%&, but it shouldn't be dismissed simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion."

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Trying is the first step to failure. -- Homer Simpson

Vista.....oh yeah..I forgot Microsoft actually develops new stuff.

What is the word on the requirements for that?

I'm not sure if you are mentioning it because it deserves a sneer - or if M$ is buying into nVidia and ATI in order to force everyone into higher end cards in order to run the OS by making it a requirement.

(nothing that scumball company does would surprise me)

Or is there, seriously, some element about Vista, (like a Quartz/etc.) that it will depend
heavily on a graphics card of some stature?

But a 256mb requirement? That seems a little steep for just an OS.

Stavs