Games on a Mac.

http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=24

Looks interesting...

 

LOL, macs suck for gaming still.

 

They are getting better though, you must admit. I had a friend bring a MacBook Pro to a LAN party, and it ran everything just peachy, so we certainly didn't think the mac "sucked for gaming".

And this does look interesting. Cedega for OS X.

 

Hmmm... Well I have had no problems gaming.

 

I hope you can just install a PC game onto mac not through a "mac" version game.

 

How is that exactly? The 17inch MBP has the same specs(eh similar) to your laptop...and the x1600 in the 17inch one is clocked normal.

 

I don't know why people diss macs so much. They're getting pretty good lately, especially with their intel chips now. I think the schools screw the kids up by letting us use the stupid slow macs.

 

Mac hardware used to be the main culprit of people bashing Mac gaming (and still is in the MacBooks and in some cases the 15" MacBook Pro), but I think its more the software and the price of software from which Macs now get their low reputation in the gaming world. Also, there aren't as many games available for Macs, which also is another cause.

 

Yes, but that soon may all change. Who knows? Because if developers start making more games for Mac, maybe Apple will opt for more gaming geared hardware. Because at this point, it would be a waste to put a top of the line GPU in a Mac, except for people who did 3D stuff. And the X1600 is fine in the MBP for now. But who knows. I myself am a bit excited to see what all of this brings about, more games coming to mac, etc..

 

Indeed. It will really be interesting to see whether the stuff about Cider and being used by most of the top publishers is really something or not. I mean, it will be really impressive if they are going to be using Cider to actually do hybrid Mac/PC releases of many top-tier titles. But if they just meant that every top publisher is going to be using this to maybe release some goofy Barbie games or something, it doesn't mean all that much.

Really the only people who technically have something to lose here are the companies that have made a business out of porting Mac games, but really it seems like their days are numbered no matter what. If you didn't have something like Cider, what you would end up with would just be Mac gamers going ahead and buying Windows games and running them in BootCamp.

The appeal of Cider would definitely be that a Mac gamer could play a game natively in OS X without having to reboot, etc.

 

The biggest problem Macs tend to have with the high-end GPUs is their size. The PowerBook was like 1" thick, and I can't say for sure about the new MacBook Pro, but it's probably not much thicker. It's just hard to stuff a 7900GS into something that small. And really, the iMac isn't very big either. Macs are known for their looks. But Apple is starting to appeal to a lot of different users these days, and with them now using Intel chips, common hardware, and being able to run Windows natively (not to mention this now), I don't think it's too far-fetched to see a more powerful Mac system in the future, notebook or desktop. I remember hearing a rumor that the next generation MacBook may get a dedicated GPU. But it's not that surprising that the MacBook doesn't already have one. Besides the XPS M1210, there aren't that many sub-14" notebooks with decent GPUs. I tell you, getting a MacBook is looking more and more appealing all the time, if only I had the extra money lying around.

 

Yeah, given how compressed everything is to fit into the MacBook Pro's form factor, the X1600 really seems to be the most you're going to get in there (and even that required Apple to underclock it).

On the desktop side we've definitely seen some more powerful stuff, with the new Mac Pro line actually using Intel Woodcrest chips - conceivably one could have a heck of a gaming machine if you put a high-end graphics card in it (the actual options Apple provides are a bit more limited, although the X1900 is an option). I'm not totally clear on how it would handle things if you put in another card (I would assume it would come down to drivers on the OS X side at least).

 

With rapidly changing ULV technology it's not hard to imagine both PC's and MBP's at 1 inch thicknesses or less due to shrinking component and GPU sizes. Just a matter of time, perhaps sooner than we think.

 

But what's up with the MBP price? That's just way too much for something with those specs

 

I don't know, there's certainly a bit of a price premium, but it isn't dramatically more expensive than comparably equipped machines with the kind of form factor that MBP has.

 

It's quite easily $600 over priced compared to other notebooks with similar specs. But I guess people would pay anything if they want to game and have OSX

 

$600 seems like a bit much. Which notebook for example do you have in mind that have the same specs as the MBP with the same dimensions and weight and materials?

-Zadillo

 

Well the basic MBP cost $2k and you get 512mb of ram, 80GB hdd, 2.0Ghz, 4x single layer dvd burner, 2 USB ports, and i believe the underclocked x1600 gpu.

Compal HEL80, Asus Z96J, and the HP nc8430 to name a few. Probably about $500 cheaper w/BETTER specs.

The only thing the MBP has over these is its size (not by too much) and better build quality. But is it $600 better??

Just can't see any justification in that price. I think the regular macbook is a decent price. Still somewhat more expensive than a PC but not much. MBP is just way out there in my opinion

 

I disagree on the Macbook comment.

A friend of mine who is starting college asked me to pick him out a notebook to get, and at first I tried to get him to purchase the Macbook right away but he didn't want that, due to varying reasons but the price reason was not brought up by him.

Anyways, so I started looking for a notebook of comparable size and specs to mine, and I can tell you right off the bat that PC compeitors were more expensive, reason why? Because of the form factor and making it so thin. I looked at many different manufacturers such as HP, Lenovo, etc and all were about 300-800 dollars more.

 

INEEDMONEY, it all depends I guess. It does generally come down to the form factor and materials (same reason that the Sony SZ series costs as much as it does).

 

I could stomach purchasing a MacBook very easily. It's a little high once you add a little more RAM and get AppleCare, but still not out too far, and comparably priced with many Windows-based notebooks of the same size and power. MacBook Pro though... that's way out there. It's not so much the price per se... people are paying much more for the XPS M1710 or even the M90 (though I got a great deal). Difference? Both these machines have much stronger GPUs and offer better DVD burners. Downside is that they are twice as thick and weigh ~9 lbs. To me, the biggest rip is the iMac, though I love it and nearly bought it. It's marketed as a desktop, and as a desktop, you can have a much more powerful, much cheaper Windows box. It should really be in its own class though. It's not quite a desktop. Personally though, I would rather pay less and have more power because the 1" thick doesn't matter that much too me.

 

I don't know, I actually got a 17" iMac for my mom and I think it's really an excellent machine. It performs incredibly well, and the screen on it is beautiful (it's actually significantly better I think than my Dell 2005fpw monitor in terms of picture quality, etc.).

I think it's still pretty firmly in the desktop category, just that it's an all-in-one in an incredibly tight package (which is really a big benefit for my mom, since she has everything she needs right in the main iMac unit, and doesn't have a bunch of cables all over the place or a tower sitting under the desk).

I see what you mean - perhaps at some point Apple is going to need to consider moving away from the current form factor that they've basically been using ever since the 1" Titanium PowerBook G4 was released. I think it is an excellent form factor, but as you note, it does limit to some degree the kind of hardware that can be in there, and does make it more expensive.

It does seem like Apple could put a really nice pro machine together if they were willing to have a 9-10 pound machine that was thicker.

 

The are a couple of things you are overlooking. You mentioned build quality, but you forgot that there is great customer support to go along with it. Also, the most important thing is you can't run OS X on anything else. Those that use OS X know what I mean.

People also forget what Apple is aiming for. They are not going after gamers. The gaming segment is not that big in the whole scheme of things. They are going for those who want stability and security, who want an 'all-in-one' package. They achieve these things by tying the OS to the hardware. They give a better experience than Windows ever could deliver because they only have to make it work on a finite combonation of systems. For many, myself included, that is worth the premium. And by the looks of their market share last quater many people seem to agree.

 

Very good point cashmonee. I think really the fact that you can now install Windows on a MacBook, and even do some moderate gaming with a MBP (both things that were really just never options on previous PowerBooks) is sort of like the icing on the cake, in a way. I mean, it does take away one of the big things that made it a very difficult decision to get a Mac; that is, the requirement to basically abandon the possibility of running Windows and Windows apps.

 

I mentioned OSX in a earlier post.

I really have no problem against the Macs. I've used OSX. If i wasnt a gamer I would have considered the Macbook. I think they should give up on this "keep it thin and portable" idea for the MBP. It really makes the machine cost more than its worth. Even with OSX. And isn't most of Apple's money made off of Ipods?

And security and stability is getting better with Windows. I've never had a system crash since i've had Win XP (going on 4 years now). Windows ME...now that's a different story.

 

300 - 800 more? What computers are you looking at? They may be more they may not be, but I really, really doubt there is that much difference. HP/Compaq, Dell, Toshiba all offer notebooks at the same level as the macbook. They may be bigger, but not "Oh my god!" bigger Lenovo just offers high quality notebooks; higher than the other three.

 

Well, they certainly shouldn't "give up" on the idea. A thin and relatively lightweight portable is still very appealing. I do think Apple could benefit from a larger form factor laptop though that was thicker and heavier and perhaps made of more standard materials.

Apple's revenues are split fairly evenly between their computers and iPods.

Regarding security and stability; I agree, it is getting better, but please remember that your personal experiences with XP aren't the same as everyone's. I've noticed this a lot, frankly - people who personally haven't had a problem with XP and thus thinking that it has no problems. Clearly a lot of people have had to deal with security and stability issues (if they didn't, MS wouldn't have had to make some of the radical changes they are making with Vista).

 

Maybe come with a mac priced between the MB and MBP. I think thats what Apple is missing; a more affordable machine with dedicated graphics. Make it bigger!! Gosh...

And security will always be an issue because there are always new ways of attacking a computer being generated. Giving out their source code probably doesnt help them too much

 

Actually Open Source is considered more secure. There are more people able to look at it and pound on it to work out the bugs. A closed source program like Windows, doesn't get the same amount of attention from the community, but it obviously still gets attention from hackers. In general, open source will always be more secure because everyone gets to see the holes and fix them. Also, bugs are common in everything, but it is only one of the concerns involved in security. A secure program should make it so difficult to crack that even bugs that allow are hard to exploit. This is where OS X and Windows are very different. When I am running as a limited user in OS X the hacker, or program has the same limited rights I have. They can't do anything.

 

I can't tell you how much I see the community helping OS X on security, you'll see that during any security update that Apple credits many individual people as well as universities and such for reporting such things to apple and a fix for it.

yes there are stuff being reported to MS to fix, but those are all large corporations who are making a profit off of Windows because of its lack of security.

My friend who tried Windows Vista said he's never used a more annoying operating system (other than previous Windows OS'es) before, he says he can barely do a thing without having to constantly enter in his admin information.

In matter of fact, I gotta go fix my Dads Windows PC that I setup for him, somehow a trojan still got on the computer pass the antivirus (always updated) and the Trojan scanner, and none of the programs can do anything because windows has it locked, not to mention I can't open any of the them.

-BandAiD

 

i think it all depends on the user/buyer

to me, apple's product always seems very *overated* (/flamesheild on ). my cousin brought a macbook a month or two ago for around $1000 and to me it just seems so wasteful because i KNOW i can get a better/similarly specced system for a much lower price. sure, i won't get the super nice screen, or the sleek exterior but i'm a broke college student whos more focused on the "more bang for the buck" than the "look at me! i got a mac!" mentality.

with that said, i got a dell e1705 for college last month. i got it on sale for about $1000 at the end, and the specs are just a lot better than the $1000 macbook. it may be a tad too heavy, but i did my research and brought the laptop as a desktop replacement. if i wanted a laptop similar to the macbook in terms of portablity, i would of gotten the e1505 for about $650 and it would outclass the macbook almost in everything in terms of hardware. unless if the macbook guarantee to get me chicks and last at least 1-2 years longer than a typical laptop, i won't be getting a apple anytime soon

 

Err you sure the e1505 is what you're talking about, because spec wise, its not up to par with the Macbook.

e1505 has 1.6Ghz | Macbook has 1.8Ghz
512MB 533Mhz DDR2 (single channel) | 512MB 667Mhz DDR2 (dual channel)
XP | OS X
15.4 Widescreen (matte) | 13.3 Widescreen (gloss)
60GB 5400RPM | 60GB 5400RPM
CD-RW 24x Combo | CD-RW 24x Combo
950 GMA | 950 GMA
Integrated Audio | Integrated Audio
Dell Wireless 54mbps | Airport Extreme (atheros) 54mbps
$789 | $1099

Configuring the Dell to be on par in terms of processor speed and having gloss screen brings it up to $866.

Now the Dell comes with Bloatware, Apple does not. Apple also already contains much software such as iLife which cover anything from photo duty, music, web design, movie editing. Things you actually use.

Anyways its a tradeoff between the e1505 and the Macbook

Comparing the Macbook to the e1705 is a bit different, but none the less the same. Bringing up the processor (dual core version) speed to par adds 68 dollars which makes it $1137, but you also have to note the macbook still yet has a faster memory FSB, and the only real advantage of the e1705 depends on what varies among people and thats harddrive space and screen size. Don't forget that the macbook is also thinner and lighter.

Anyways I don't know your exact configuration of your system, but from what I seen and configuring the three to be close as possible to the macbooks lowest base model, the pricing lands in an area of only $xx difference.

 

One big problem with your argument. You're not using coupons. Granted, many people will not think of coupons when they configure the E1505, but they are there nonetheless, and those who really know what they're doing can find them. Let me give you a better comparison:

E1405|MacBook
1.83 Core Duo|1.83 Core Duo
1 GB 533 RAM|512MB 667 RAM
XP|OS X
14.1" Widescreen (glossy,1440x900)|13.3" Widescreen (glossy, 1280x800)
80GB 7200RPM|60GB 5400RPM
8xDVD+/-RW (double layer)|24xCD-RW
950GMA|950GMA
Intel a/b/g 108mbps (if using a/g) and Bluetooth|Airport 54mbps and Bluetooth
$1000.80|$1099.00

That was priced using coupons found on this site. You get a bigger screen with more res, twice as much RAM, an 8x DVD-RW with DL, something the SuperDrive MacBook doesn't even offer, a bigger, faster hard drive, and a dual-band wireless card. Still 100 bucks less. You could upgrade the hard drive again to get it to match the MacBook price if you wanted.

 

Hey, I already met one girl who thinks my Macbook is awesome, I think shes a little bit jealous, because its a bit better than her iBook.

Face it, Girls dig style and finding a man with a taste of style in his electronics is hot.

 

Well, do these coupons work outside the US? If not, there's a flaw in your reasoning also. I haven't done any real research into this so I could be wrong, but the impression I have gotten is that they are only issued in the US.

Update: Checked Dell.ie, it does give me a coupon entry field, but I have found no information on Dell offering any such coupons here - the ones on notebookreview.com seem very US-centric at least.

 

I visit many difference websites relating to computers and some that offer Dell coupons, many people end up coming back saying it doesn't work in their country.

 

One could also add in any Apple student discounts or ADC hardware purchaes if you wanted to bring in Dell coupons.....that don't even work in Canada....

 

sorry, i was comparing a coupon deal with the e1505 a month ago to the $1,100 macbook. dell's prices are eratic and likes to jump up and down all over the place

here was the e1505 sale a few weeks ago for around $675

Intel® Core™ Duo Proc T2300E (1.66GHz/667MHz/1 X 2MB L2 Cache)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
15.4 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen SXGA+ Display with TrueLife™
1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz, 2 Dimm
128MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1300 HyperMemory™
120GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Integrated Audio
Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 Internal Wireless
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support

i mean spec wise, its almost better than the macbook in every way except for maybe the cpu and its much cheaper than the macbook.

heres how i specced my e1705 for about $1100 total:

Intel® Core™ Duo Proc T2250 (1.73GHz/533MHz/2 X 1MB L2 Cache)
Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition
17 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife™
FREE!1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ Go 7900 GS
60GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
10/100 Network Card and Modem
8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Integrated Audio
Intel PRO/Wireless 3945 Internal Wireless
53 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr Mail-In Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support

how much does one normally save from the apple student discount? when i went to the apple site, i selected my school and i didn't see much (if any) discount for some reason.

hmm now i regret not getting a macbook

 

Ok, this does not need to become a my price comparison vs yours thread. Everyone understands that Dell sells computers for dirt cheap. I will argue that you get what you pay for. My wife has an Inspiron 6000, and it feels cheap. It is huge for a 15" and creeks every time you move anything on it. Also, the buttons feel cheap and the keyboard is ok at best, and Dell's track record for LCD's does not seem to carry over to their laptops. Don't forget you can't legally run OS X on a Dell. Like I said, Dell's are cheap, but you get what you pay for.

 

sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread into a dell vs apple debate i was just lurking around on the forums trying to learn more about macs in general. thought the debate was interesting and thought i'd give my 2 cents

/slinks back to the shadows

 

I would totally disagree with that. My M90 feels more solid than my friend's PowerBook, and it's way more powerful. Inspirons... maybe. But even I am impressed with their durability. Are they the same as my M90? Of course not. But they're decent. Look, I wasn't bringing OS X or durability into the equation, because hands down, Mac wins that war. They also win the war of looks and style. But what people have pointed out is if that is worth taking a hit in performance. Sure, the Inspirons don't have the best build... but what we are saying is that they offer the best bang for the buck. Look, the bottom line is this... sure you can get a MacBook and it will have better build, better reputation, and maybe even better service. But in the end, a college student is gonna look at the two and realize that they're getting much better features with the E1405 than with the MacBook. And the MacBook is Apple's budget-friendly machine. We're not even talking about the MBP here. And hey, if you want to throw in Apple University discounts, then you might as well say that you can count Dell's EPP discounts, which can go as high as 35% or more off. And in regards to OS X, while I personally love it, XP is just a smarter decision for most people. Not as secure, no, but offers the flexibility and compatibility that OS X can't offer. Sure, Mac can run XP, but you'll be required to purchase an XP disc, which goes for $200-$300 dollars retail, which is not included in the price of the Mac. And what people really ask themselves is if the premium that you pay for the Mac worth it just to run OS X? Obviously not to most people, which is why Dell and HP out-sell Apple. For you, it's obviously worth it, and that's your choice. As I've said before, I would love to have a Mac and almost bought one. But price-for-price PCs are generally a better bang for your buck. But as I said, it goes the other way too when you look at the XPS for instance.

 

your m90 may be built very well but i can guarantee you the e1405 is not on the same level..my brother in law has one..even hp's consumer laptops are better built..well slightly..the sad thing is that the some of the better built windows laptops out there are either the business models aka hp's nc8430 which you will never see in store and yet it kills hp's own consumer notebooks in the same price range let alone dells/toshibas/averatec and other low end stuff that you see in your local compusa/bestbuy/costco/whatever..the fact is that apple has very good exposure by having their apple stores all over the place..their tech support is iffy and probably varies on location..but i guess its better than having to call someone on the phone in india

 

This is my favorite part.

I love it when someone brings in the whole performance thing and having the better specs and stuff on a PC laptop, well I never see anyone take into consideration of the fact that both operating system have different level of hardware needs when its running.

Windows XP needs a lot more computational power than OS X does, I mean I see my Windows XP reporting 100% use of the CPU much more often than OS X. Windows XP doesn't use all of the memory, I have 1GB of ram in a desktop I gave my father and it never exceeds 500MB of it, I mean comeon people pay for all that memory to be entirely used, OS X is memory hungry, it just eats every bit of it that it can and thats what we want! An OS that uses all of it for its needs. Windows are limited to 2GB max of accessible memory, OS X is not.

Anyways the point I'm trying to get across is both OS have different level of hardware requirements to run fast and stable, in this case OS X does not need the amount that Windows XP does.

So really the whole performance thing is pointless, I mean isn't the whole point is to run your operating system? The whole gaming aspect I leave out on purpose because its not Apples target, and I have to admit with all this eye candy and such my 950 GMA is handling it with a breeze. Now Vista is suppose to use how much of the video end of it?

 

ok I thought this thread is about gaming, I just want to know if anyone actually tried to overclock their MBP's x1600 and are there any side effects?

 

Reason why it was clocked to the speed it was to keep the heat down, the side effects of overclocking is overheating and shortening the lifespan of the components, not to mention the voiding of your warranty.

 

I believe that you are the first person I've ever heard that says that an OS eating every bit of memory it can is a good thing. This is one thing that people complain about with Windows the most. And if you've got a Core Duo and XP is using 100% of it when not doing anything CPU intensive (in which case OS X would also use all the processor), then it sounds like you've either got a problem with your XP install or Boot Camp causes problems. Even when running virus scans, my CPU usage doesn't go above 25-50%. Only when gaming does it reach 100%. And the fact that you think that XP can only use 2GB of RAM just shows that you don't really know what you're talking about. XP can use up to 4GB of RAM, but no more. Now, XP x64 can handle more. Why? Because it's a 64-bit OS and a 32-bit OS cannot technically use more than 4GB of memory because of its bandwidth. That includes OS X. OS X on a 32-bit processor such as your Core Duo can only process up to 4GB of memory, no matter what OS is controlling it. I will give you the fact that OS X uses system resources more efficiently than XP. OS X is a more efficient OS than Windows since it's based on Unix. But let's face it, by the time you're using a Core Duo and a gig or more of RAM, you'll be running pretty much any OS pretty smoothly, whether it be OS X, Windows, Linux, whatever. Both OS X and XP were designed when 256MB was the common place, and people were still using 128MB. So saying that the Mac is better with the same processor and same amount of RAM because OS X is more efficient is like saying that the LT1 engine in the Trans Am is better than in the Camaro because the TA has 10 more horsepower. It's the same engine (well pretty much) and it's gonna pull both cars pretty well. The difference is pretty negligible. The difference pretty much comes down to whether you prefer the TA or Camaro (OS X or XP).

And let's not even get into Vista, because I would be willing to bet you have never even used Vista. I use it nearly every day. And the GMA 950 runs Aero perfectly well. And if you don't want Aero, Vista offers a basic UI and a classic UI to take it easy on your graphics if you so choose. And if you think that OS X is such a nice UI (which personally I agree), it's overall eye candy is nowhere near the level of Vista (which as I said before runs perfectly on GMA 950). When OS X has live thumbnails with streaming video capabilities, then we'll talk.

 

It has been done with great success on the performance side, but the MBP's form factor and problems it already has with cooling means that you'll need another cooling solution such as a cooling pad to keep the system from severly overheating and causing problems. But the MacBook Pro is quite the adequate gaming machine once you put XP on it and return the x1600 to stock clocks. I would suggest going with the 17" rather than 15" if you are planning on doing so however as the 17" should not get as hot as the 15".

 

Firstly, gaming, I've got a MBP 2ghz 256mb x1600, and in windows mode it runs games like Most Wanted and Oblivion nicely. I've overclocked my graphics card moderately (up to about 410/400) and I've had no problems. If you are going to game put the computer on a desk rather than your lap, as the computer will be better ventilated. After you have finished gaming the computer cools down pretty quickly too.

As for value of the Macbook or MBP vs PC rivals, it's all about the target market. What a lot of PC users fail to realise is that they will need to spend a few hundred dollars for software on top of the computer. In regards to the OSX vs Windows debate, you must remember that ALL Apple computers come with "ILife" installed, a great multimedia suite that would easily cost a few hundred dollars for something supposedly equivalent on a PC.

When you buy an Apple you know you are getting great build quality, style, a very solid OS with a great bundle of applications, and the ability to run Windows using Bootcamp if you have to for gaming. With a thin form factor, virtually no bugs or security worries in OSX (no need for an antivirus), and excellent support from Apple, it's clear that Apple is well ahead of the competition in most areas.

If you are strapped for cash you might get a bargain on a Dell notebook with decent specs and cross your fingers and pray that there are no issues, but if you are after excellent quality, great customer support and an enjoyable computing experience for a pretty good price, then Apple is the best fruit in the bowl.

 

Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of people getting all over Dell. I've owned two Dells now and have had no problems with either of them. My old C640 is pushing five years old now and it's biggest fault is a broken hinge, which came from me carrying it around in my backpack instead of in a cushioned case. Yeah, people have problems with Dells from time to time, but that's true of any company, especially one that is one of the top computer sellers in the country, and even the world. And getting a few bad lemons here and there is nowhere near as bad in my opinion as pushing out a laptop with major heat problems such as the MacBook Pro just to keep it an inch thick. The thing has been known to burn people, and even the MacBook Pro review on this site says that you shouldn't use it on your lap when plugged in. That's a design flaw. I would own a MacBook, and one day I hope to. But MacBook Pro... no thanks (just a personal opinion).

 

haha I just want to know if anyone have done it and willing to share their opinion about overclocking.