[Quicksilver]

Here's the new Razer Mamba. Horrible name (I immediately thought "Mambo"), but it's essentially a new DeathAdder, with dual wireless/wired functionality. The wireless function might actually be decent, but I'll wait and see until I have the mouse in my grubby mitts. Thing is freakin' expensive ($130), which actually raises my hopes.

I'm still trying to figure out what those two buttons are on the extreme edge of the left trigger. My bet is on sensitivity adjustment (blah), but if they allow us to use old OTF scheme and remap the new buttons, then all's well.

[Mr. Selvetarm]

Looks tasty, but I could get 130 double cheeseburgers for the same amount of money.

[Frigidman]

Will they make an update for those who have the DeathAdder?





...





I TROL U!

[Quicksilver]

What kind of update, and yeah, $130 is twice what people usually pay for both a mouse and keyboard. However, we have yet to see a wireless mouse that comes anywhere near the performance of a decent wired model, so it's possible that the expense is warranted. I'll send Razer an email and see if I can get one in for review.

[Frigidman]

It was a stupid question: like, I own the DeathAdder, so can I get an update to my mouse so that it looks and works like the Mamba...

[The Liberator]

Now when would this be coming to the Mac, or is it possible that it will fly right past us?

Liberator.

[AussieMacGamer]

With Razer's current history of support for the Mac, that doesnt seem very likely at all. I can't see this mouse being more popular than the Deathadder for the time being though. I don't see many gamers having a $130 dollar desire for a wireless right hand.

[The Liberator]

Oh, okay. Well that is a pity. I thought as much. Thanks anyways.

Liberator.

[Quicksilver]

On the subject of drivers: they've already written the control panel for two mice already (Pro|Click v1.6 and DeathAdder), so technically, it shouldn't be that hard to add more mice. Whether they chose to do that probably depends on how many Mac users bought the DeathAdder and how many Mac users request drivers. This isn't like Apple--I think Razer's actually sympathetic.

[AussieMacGamer]

Razerguy actually answers his email too! Unalike good old steve.

[The Liberator]

I guess it is to do with how many mice they will sell, and if they will be given enough money for that amount of mice. I think that is why there are not as many Razer keyboards (only one type) that have been given drivers for the Mac.

Liberator.

[Quicksilver]

Well, the more we buy, the more we get. Kind of like the economy.

[The Liberator]

Exactly, thats my point. Only if there were more mac gamers, only if…

Liberator.

[jackdawsson]

Two inevitable future developments that'll certainly help here: Apple updating the Mini &, as most new game releases for Mac seem to be Intel only, more PPC Mac gamers upgrading to Intel. The new Mini might be almost imminent, whilst a comprehensive Mac-gamers move to Intel will take a while longer, but both should give Mac gaming a massive boost with good things following on.

[Quicksilver]

I think you're wrong there. Apple is either going to kill the Mini, or kill the AppleTV. Either way, gamers lose. Why? Even if they kill the AppleTV in favor of the Mini, the only GPU I can see going in there is a Geforce 9400M. That thing isn't suitable for titles more demanding than games powered by the Source engine.

[jackdawsson]

The item below has been knocking around various Mac fora for about 3 weeks now, so a NVIDIA 9400M wouldn't surprise me. I highly doubt Apple will put something more powerful in the Mini. Granted that it isn't going to satisfy any hard-core gamers wanting to play everything at high FPS, we're talking low-end Macs here, so it's all about having a relative perspective (from GMA950 to, let's assume, 9400M).

I think for many Mac users who want a reasonably updated but (relatively) cheap, headless Mac, offering significantly improved gaming over its predecessor, even a 9400M will largely be welcomed. If we were talking about Windows machines, I think your point about how "gamers lose" would be more valid.

"Configuration files buried within some versions of Mac OS X show evidence that the next iMac and Mac Mini will indeed be based on the NVIDIA MCP79 chipset. Apple recently switched their MacBook, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models to the NVIDIA chipsets in October. Amongst other benefits, the new notebooks have much improved graphics card capabilities, which make them more suitable to take advantage of OpenCL technologies coming in Snow Leopard.



Apple will apparently be bringing these improvements to both the new iMac and Mac mini. While many have expected the iMac to receive these upgrades, the fate of the Mac mini has been less certain.



A configuration file found in the Mac OS X version that ships with the new MacBook and MacBook Pros reveal entries referencing unreleased "MacMini3,1" and "iMac9,1" models. The relevant lines have been excerpted here:



The CFG_MCP79 appears to refer to the NVIDIA MCP79 chipset, which suggests these unannounced models will use this new chipset. The currently shipping iMac and Macmini carry model numbers of iMac8,1 and Macmini2,1. The findings were originally described in a forum post that we've subsequently verified. The references are found in System -> Library -> Extensions -> IOPlatformPluginFamily.kext -> Contents -> PlugIns -> ACPI_SMC_PlatformPlugin.kext -> Contents -> Info.plist in the new MacBook or MacBook Pro."

[Quicksilver]

What's the point of mentioning the MCP79? It's bearing on performance is tangential.

The point is, anything lower-spec than the hardware currently in the MacBook Pro (9600M GT) is absolutely unsuitable for 3D gaming. By the way, I can't believe Apple put a superflous 9400M in that system instead of coding a more granular clocking scheme and including a 9800M GT. The 65nm 9600M GT draws 23 watts, and I estimate that the 9400M GT is 12-15 watts. That implementation is so inefficient. They may as well used a 55nm (G94 core) version of the 9800M GT, whose 65nm (G92) core draws 65 watts (I'd estimate power draw in the high 50-watt range for the 55nm version). The price would probably be about $25 more from Apple's perspective, and they'd have to rely less on passive cooling, but the result would be at least double their current 3D performance. If they would've stuck to 1" thickness and dumped the Expresscard slot, I can think of a way to cool a 9800M GTX.

But I digress.

[jackdawsson]

I agree with you about having a 9600M GT in some of the consumer Macs, but you know Apple. They'll try to protect sales of high-profit margin Macs like the Mac Pro by crippling anything they reasonably can on lower-end Macs. As new 9400M MacBooks are probably more than good enough for most users needs, they killed FW to get more people looking at the MacBook Pro. If you want matte, they give us the 17" MacBook Pro. Why not the 15" one also? Frankly, it sucks (as does the Vista PC alternative for other reasons), but it's the Apple way & I see nothing changing under Apple's current hierarchy.

[Erfinda]

I have one arriving tomorrow sometime; I'll let you guys know how it's working.

[Sneaky Snake]

My death adder's on the fly sensitivity bar won't show up in game (in Vista 32 bit). The option is turned on in the control panel the mouse is at driver v1.09 and firmware 1.25.