IS THIS THE END OF Second Life FOR MANY NEW MAC OWNERS?

Absolutely. In fact, my MacBook Pro has 256MB of graphics RAM. My otherwise idential 20" iMac 2.0 has 128MB. The iMac is unusable with the current build; the MBP is much smoother and usable for a longer time.

(In the end, I have to go into Windows to get anything done in SL though.)

i was planning on buying a macbook pro with 2gb sdram ,a 256mb video card ,and /or a 7200 rpm hard disk. Will this setup ,even with 5400 rpm beat the performance i now get on my powerbook g4? how much performance enhancement can i expect by going to 7200 rpm from 5400rpm in this configuration.

Not anything cheaper than a PC with 2gig mem, 3ghz+ and a high end vid card. Svargas is a very detailed sim, and that means a goood computer to run it, you woulnt be able to build that level with anything cheap ^..^

I've been running SL on a 2Ghz Intel MacBook with only 512mb and it is, by first impression, faster than the 1.64ghz PowerBook G4 it replaced. Not a gaming machine by specs, but better than the G4 and its dedicated video. Macbook needs all 512mb for OS and SL viewer and will likely run faster with a RAM upgrade, whenever I get around to it.

Part of the question is what's happening in the grid. Seems like when there's lag / packet loss in a Sim, it seems as slow as usual.

But I don't need max framerate in SL anyway. Just don't let me use a fast windows desktop -- I might get hooked.

....well since SO many chose to have issues with all my warnings about this now the FACT is that frame rates are SO bad that MANY Mac users have to log off. WELL you ALL can THANK all my detractors for they ALL got what they dearly wanted (Insert sarcasm here).. You know it's all a fantastic joke really it's funny about such stubborn stupidity. It would have been and still may be the proper thing to do to fix things PROPERLY once and for all by coding the Mac client correctly. ANYone who disagrees with this deserves your HATE Mac users (and I mean those who really hate what Linden Labs is doing-rather than those who think its ok for some Mac users to drop out) because something you LOVE is being taken away from you..........

What, there's another vaguely-conventional desktop Mac available that doesn't have a GMA950?

If you don't want an all-in-one solution, the mini's the only option.

I'm missing somthing... I just logged in on my new-today iMac, and SL seems to blaze.

-Ghoti

Ghoti, your iMac has a Radeon card, and isn't a problem. It's the less-expensve MacBook (plastic case) and Mac Mini that are screwed, because Apple chose to use a fairly limited capability Intel integrated video chip for those, and you can't upgrade.

Bottom line, the threshold for reliably using SL on a new Mac is a $1299 USD iMac. The less-expensive new models use a chip that LL does not support, and that really isn't up to dealing with SL even if LL chose to design for it.

Some new Mac Mini users say that their Intel iMacs run SL acceptably. Heck, my original-release MacMini is technically still functional. Very slow, but functional. The problem is just that since LL doesn't support the less-expensive Mac hardware, there is no promise that the older HW will run with any specific new release of SL.

As an original Mac Mini owner, I dread each new SL release, because I can't afford to drop over a grand to replace my Mac, and can't justify dropping $500 to $750 USD for a Windows PC that I would only use for SL and a few graphics programs...

2.16GHz MacBook Pro 17", 1GB RAM, 256MB Radeon Mobility x1600

I get 20-30FPS in low population density areas, 10-25 in higher density. To all MBP users, turn on AGP accelleration, you'll notice a 50% jump in performance -- I have no idea why AGP accelleration would boost performance on a PCIe system, but it does.

Anyhoo, I'm incredibly pleased with the performance. Cheers!

CCC

Because its nothing to do with AGP really. Its using features that AGP had, but PCIe has as well. Its just still common for people to be stuck with old terms because PCIe is so new and AGP was used for many years.

I do tend to have problems with crashes and sometimes when there is too much going on in-world I will suffer a crash..but most PC users seem to have the same problem.I run SL on a 3 year old G5 tower and on one of the less expensive G4 ibooks and don't have that much of a problem. I am switching from a telephone line based connection to a cable connection soon. Ill post if my speed/performance gets any better/worse.

You have discovered the secret Hiro. If you have a MacBook or MacMini you have to up the ram as much as you can so that the internal graphics aren't eating a high percentage of the shared memory.

I know people with MacBooks who love SL and don't have any problems, but if they start getting lag then they reboot into XP and run SL there and it goes away.

Ed

It seems all this hub-bub is over speculation and not concrete user experiences -- so here's mine:

I have a white MacBook (not Pro) and Second Life runs acceptably well with 2 GB of RAM. The stock configuration was a bit dodgy with memory if I had more than just Second Life running. If you get a MacBook and expect SL to run well while running Photoshop you're in for a nasty surprise. If you accept it for what it is and just run one app at a time you will be fine. That said, I can run SL, Photoshop, Illustrator, Safari, Adium and the Terminal all at once with 2 GB of RAM.

One thing I have noticed that the MacBook has issues with in Second Life is a large number of avatars on the screen. I try to keep less than 10-15 avatars visible to reduce the poly count that I have to render. This usually keeps my framerate around 18-25 (in a scene with no other avatars present) and around 8-12 (when more avatars appear). The worst I've ever seen it was in a meeting with 30 avatars, and it was down around 5 FPS.

Second, I would like to address the fear that Linden Lab will dump support for the Mac. In a nutshell, we won't. A few folks at LL are hard-core Mac fanatics (myself included) and we wouldn't let the company make a decision like that. Further, that's just not our style Please do not worry about Linden Lab dumping the Mac platform just because Macs can boot into Windows. We know there are some of you who would rather use an abacus to surf the web than boot a shiny new Mac into Windows.

I just bought one of the black MacBooks (not pro) to take when I fly. I have used three laptops with Second Life other than my MacBook and here is what I have found:

1. Dell Inspiron 700m (under $1500) with the first generation of the integrated Intel video used in the MacBook - this system was almost unusable in Second Life.

2. Dell D610 ($1500 to $2500) with a non-integrated 32MB ATI X300 - (running DNA overclocked drivers) - this system was usable but far from perfect. As with alot of the ATI cards, textures are washed out, jerky motion, and viewer crashes happen occassionally. Almost as bad as the 700m without the DNA drivers.

3. Dell Precision M65 ($2500+) with a non-integrated 512MB NVIDIA - this system was just right but its a fortune compared to the MacBook. Texture loading was perfect, no crashes, etc.


What I've learned is simply that a large amount of RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive doesn't do much to help along the laptops with integrated video.

If you can't afford to buy a laptop with non-integrated video like Dell's M65, XPS series, or the new MacBook Pro, buy a PC to run Second Life.

I've run Second Life in Windows XP SP2 using Boot Camp and I can't say its much better.

Johnny
secondcast.com

I can believe it.

I have a Macbook Pro. Menumeters reports one CPU at 100% and one at 50% most of te time I'm in SL. This is the first time I've NOT had the CPU maxed in SL, so I'm happy with that.

But doing 3d in a Mac with a GMA950 uses up most of one CPU (in bursts) just doing OpenGL, so it makes a big difference. On the other hand, because Apple does take over for the GPU SL should be less dependent on the quirks of the GPU than it is on Windows (is that the case?).

I'd be interested in hearing what the performance of SL on a Windows box with a Radeon X200 (ATI's low-end integrated GPU) compared to the GMA950.

Oh, Brent, why can't I get Avatar Vertex Program on my Macbook Pro?

I found the Radeon X200 and older X300 to be better than the GMA950. Both systems were Windows XP SP 2 with 1GB system memory.

Will i have to cancel my SL subscription and leave after my Macbook (not pro) arives?
Thanks

That all depends on your performance expectations of the SL viewer. What are the specs of the system you are currently using?

I have a good spec PC which runs SL realy well - i'm not expecting my MacBook to be that good. I want it Useable.

Well, I own a MacBook Pro (1.5 GB RAM) and a MacBook (1.2 GB RAM). My girlfriend also has a MacBook (also 1.2 GB RAM). As you can see, we're kind of Apple-spoiled.

Now, as both my girlfriend and I have Second Life accounts, we could do quite a bit of testing SL on both the MBP and the MB. Here are our results:

- On my MBP SL works really well, I've not yet had any problems wih it. Performance seems really good to me - I'm not someone who's always watching the raw numbers (i.e. FPS) but who focusses more on the overall experience. And from that point of view, the MacBook Pro works really, really well!

- On the MB, SecondLife also runs without problems. It's quite a bit slower than the MBP, especially in complicated settings, but the overall experience has still always been very good. In fact, my girlfriend is running SL all the time on her MB and she doesn't really have any complaints. When she comes over and sees me play on my MBP she'll occasionally say things like: "Well, I didn't know that this would actually be that fast", but otherwise, she's really happy with SL on her machine.

So, all in all I would like to say that by my standards, SL can be played relatively comfortably on a MacBook, even after yesterday's viewer update. It will run better on a MacBook Pro or any other machine with a "real" graphics chip, that's for sure! But - and if I look at the title of this thread, this is the important thing - second life is fully playable on a MacBook, and this a MacBook is *not* the end of Second Life for Mac users!

The most important thing, as has been said before: Put some more RAM into your MacBook, the 512 MB it comes with by default are a little limited. In fact, you might want to use two equally-sized RAM modules in your MacBook, as this is supposed to improve the performance quite a bit. We don't even have this (equally sized RAM modules) in the MBs we tested it on, so it could even be better than my experience if you *do* have two equally sized modules. Finally, even though I have not had a chance to test it, I believe that the above mentioned experienc with a MacBook should also be valid for the Intel-based Mac mini, since it's basically the same hardware, except if you get the single core version, in which case I don't dare to speculate how much of a performance penalty a missing CPU core would be. This can only be found out by testing.

Anything with bad gfx card, laptop, desktop, mac, windows, linux, ... will run SecondLife slowly.

I was able to play SL with an old ATI9200SE (it was a pain) on MSwindows.
Now i have an ATI X1600 on my PC, and same on my MBP. both run well. (a bit better on my MBP )
I'm waiting for my iMac, i believe it will run very well too

Just don't buy hardware with poor gfx performance to play videogame... simple as that.
If you are unable to buy thoses expensive hardware... well... don't blame Apple or LindenLab ... We can't do anything for that ...

I have had my macbook for a month and am very pleased with how SL runs. It runs very very smoothly and solid! I disagree that MacBook is a budget computer......I play halo, world of warcraft and SL with absolutely no problem at all. Just had to put my two cents in.
Sheena Grant

my computer nails secondlife

AMD Athalon @ 1.9 (real) Ghz
1.5gb of ddr 333 ram
PNY Geforce 6600GT

secondlife is set pretty much wide open

fact is mac pc or whatever else theres basicly 2 different breeds, home computers and gaming rigs

example, my parents have a 3.2 ghz desktop i biult, it has faster ram and a faster cpu than mine, but becuase the perticular design of the chip and the lower end video card it runs SL like crap

my older slower machine is much better at games and realtime applications, but which one do you think i would rather be using photo paint pro (heh) on

in reality, theres not much need for more than 800-1600 mhz for day to day applications

(dont beleive me, apples current bottom of the line mac mini is 1.6ghz / 1600 mhz)

gaming machines (and every company has them) contain faster ram and a wicked fast video card, course the faster the cpu the better, they usually have soundcards that are not biult in to the mainboard (those that are onboard, are sucking down valueable cpu cycles) same with intergrated video, and if your fanatic about it like i am, network card

are they more expensive?

genrally yes, but theres alot of good PC deals out there on game orientated machines ... mac your pretty much stuck with whatever apple deals you ...

but thats another argument