Intel iBooks with Front Row? [Archive]

MacRumors

Jan 27, 2006, 08:22 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Appleinsider reports (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1499) that Apple will be extending Front Row (http://guides.macrumors.com/Front_Row) to be included with the iBook this spring.

According to the rumor site, Apple will be upgrading the iBook with a 13" wide-screen display alongside Front Row and the Apple Remote. Much like the recently released Intel iMac and MacBook Pro, the iBook will incorporate a built-in iSight and also come bundled with Photo Booth.

The iBooks are said to retain a similar design as currently shipping iBooks, and will retain Firewire 400 connectors contrary to previous reports (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051208222720.shtml). The 13" model is expected to consolidate and replace both the 12" and 14" form factors that are presently shipping. The name of the final product remains up for debate. Previous comments (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060111025256.shtml) raised speculation that the iBook may adopt the "MacBook" name.

A previous report had placed the release (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060112132457.shtml) of the iBook in the 2nd calendar quarter of 2006. All recent iBook rumors can be reviewed at http://ibook.macrumors.com (http://ibook.macrumors.com/)

mcarnes

Jan 27, 2006, 08:25 PM

I'm buying one. iSight iBook = bargain! Too bad front row won't launch VIDEO_TS files...

yankeefan24

Jan 27, 2006, 08:26 PM

I WANT A NEW iBOOK DESIGN. but it might be nice.

rickvanr

Jan 27, 2006, 08:28 PM

Sounds reasonable enough. If the price is right they'll be a smash.

Viewtiful Rich

Jan 27, 2006, 08:32 PM

I'll be getting my first laptop later this year and those revisions would make it a pretty sweet first purchase. :)

.... well except the MacBook part.

dansgil

Jan 27, 2006, 08:35 PM

Hopefully, they'll use Core-Duo chips rather than the upcoming Core-Solo chips. Also, Apple should put a higher-rez screen and allow extended-video rather than just mirroring.

hyperpasta

Jan 27, 2006, 08:37 PM

While I love iSights and want them built in to all Macs/displays over the course of 2006, I think that Apple should have other priorities for the iBook (MacBook). Which would you rather have: an iSight or 128MB of VRAM? Or a SuperDrive standard? or a brighter-higher res screen?

Front Row makes sense, since its so cheap to add.

Don't forget the MagSafe adaptor!

otter-boy

Jan 27, 2006, 08:39 PM

I'm buying one. iSight iBook = bargain! Too bad front row won't launch VIDEO_TS files...

Just use Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/) to convert it to an .mp4 file. The file will be smaller and still look great, you just won't be able to skip to chapter markers. You can put that file in your "Movies" folder and play it through FrontRow.

surroundfan

Jan 27, 2006, 08:40 PM

I've got two friends waiting for the iBook updates - I guess I'll be telling them to wait a while longer. The update sure sounds tasty, and it makes the MBP look a smidge underspecced by comparison (for the price)...

MacTT

Jan 27, 2006, 08:42 PM

YES!! I knew it was gonna have an iSight. :) Wonder what the specs are gonna be though, the most important part.

Josh396

Jan 27, 2006, 08:43 PM

I'd love to see a 13 inch widescreen iBook with an iSight built in. Can't wait.

nagromme

Jan 27, 2006, 08:45 PM

One "in-between size" makes sense to me--and AI's rumor record has been good lately.

I expect it will be called some kind of MacBook and use Core Solo (it's Apple's entry-level laptop after all). And considering how well the iBook G4 keeps selling at Amazon even while Core Duos have taken over their top-10 best-selling computers list... I think a new Intel iBook-replacement could be the best-selling Mac ever.

iSight would be cool--but would surprise me a little: again, this is the entry-level line. But maybe iSight costs little enough and attracts enough buyer attention to be worth it even so. The Front Row remote surprises me less--it can't add that much cost and the software's already done.

I think it makes sense to cut some features in the VERY bottom model to keep the price low--in fact, it makes sense to me to give it NO VRAM: a lot of users have no real need for that. Just make the machine cheaper when you take the GPU away, and it becomes a nice new option in the lineup. (And yes, there should be some mid-range laptop options too--cheaper than the 15.4" MacBook Pro but still with decent GPUs/VRAM.)

Hopefully there will still be a small high-end (Core Duo) MacBook on the way as well! And of course a larger (17-20") model too. I'm sure more options are coming.

angelneo

Jan 27, 2006, 08:46 PM

It sounds pretty lame - Macbook, Macbook Pro. Argh, I just cannot get over the names.

kcmac

Jan 27, 2006, 08:50 PM

I like the 12 inch form factor. I also use my laptop for business. Ain't no way I'm buying a white a$$ iBook as it looks today. (The icebook was okay but aluminum is much better).

Hopefully, Apple will either change materials, come up with a slightly smaller powerbook (that would be cool) or have a MacBook and MacBook Pro 12 inch (oops 13 inch).

GrannySmith_G5

Jan 27, 2006, 08:51 PM

You would really think NOW would be the time to redesign the look of the ibook. Current look just seems so long in the tooth. ibook is fairly thick as well. Come on Apple make it sleeker and just all around more bodacious, tubular, and radical.

QCassidy352

Jan 27, 2006, 08:51 PM

ooh, yes please! Just make sure that the screen is a lot brighter (higher res would be nice but not necessary - the brightness has to improve though!) and I'll be buying one they day they are released! :D

Chupa Chupa

Jan 27, 2006, 08:52 PM

makes the MBP look a smidge underspecced by comparison (for the price)...

How can you say this when you don't know the full specs. Say the MacBook (ex iBook) sells for $1199 but has a single core chip, lower rez screen, slower bus, and no ExpressCard slot. We'll what you have then is the same feature disparity you had between the iBook and the Powerbook, and a similar price difference as well.

skullsplitter

Jan 27, 2006, 08:53 PM

Laser47

Jan 27, 2006, 09:00 PM

I think the new iBook ... eh Macbook will have a duo processor. After all the imac has one. Doesnt anyone remember when the ibook was suppost to be a 'Portable iMac'. And IMHO there will not be an ibook with another color other than white.

bit density

Jan 27, 2006, 09:02 PM

1.67 GHZ G4!! With replacement to core duo, once price comes down and merom is out and in macbook pro. And put a frickin' superdrive in... That and 13 inch wide screen, and the isight, and you have a pretty darn nice ~1200 machine.

Rosetta will absolutely blow with a single core. A core solo, will mean that I don't upgrade this cycle. A faster g4 and I can move my current ibook down the food chain.

Chaszmyr

Jan 27, 2006, 09:02 PM

Xephian

Jan 27, 2006, 09:07 PM

Nice to see Apple's entire line of notebooks with iSight's.

nagromme

Jan 27, 2006, 09:08 PM

I think the new iBook ... eh Macbook will have a duo processor. After all the imac has one. Doesnt anyone remember when the ibook was suppost to be a 'Portable iMac'.
That's not a literal rule: the iBook can (and does) have specs that are different from the iMac: like having a smaller screen, and having a G4 instead of a G5.

Unlike the iMac (a mid-range desktop), the iBook is an entry-level Mac (like the Mac Mini is). Entry-level means there's really no such thing as specs too low... AS LONG AS the price is low to match the specs. Core Duo would raise the minimum cost of owning an Apple portable, and that's probably not a good idea if Core Solo is also a great chip--and cheaper.

1.67 GHZ G4!! With replacement to core duo, once price comes down and merom is out and in macbook pro. And put a frickin' superdrive in... That and 13 inch wide screen, and the isight, and you have a pretty darn nice ~1200 machine.

Rosetta will absolutely blow with a single core. A core solo, will mean that I don't upgrade this cycle. A faster g4 and I can move my current ibook down the food chain.
I don't think enough Rosetta Core Solo tests have come out to judge yet ;) But waiting until the transition to Intel is more firmly complete does have advantages, if you're not in the market for a machine sooner.

Also, one core is MORE than half the speed of two (and sometimes just as fast--depending on usage) so a Core Solo is not a slow chip by any means. Core Solo is faster than the Pentium M, which already fares pretty well against even desktop processors (and against the G4).

Natron

Jan 27, 2006, 09:11 PM

Danksi

Jan 27, 2006, 09:17 PM

Hopefully it wont have a dual core processor, only 64mb vram, w/ 512 ram, 13.3 widescreen, superdrive allowing it to be still a fantastic machine but a clear cut down from the macbook pro...

I hope this'll be the spec used, as the current spec seems to be getting old for the price. A built in iSight would be nice.

Off-tangent a little - is there a chance that iSight models would be banned in some places?

I've been in a number of places that force you to leave camera phones at the front desk, slightly smaller than an iBook, but same principle/risk. Perhaps a risk for MacBook Pro users, rather than the target audience of the iBook, although Schools have also banned camera devices in the past, due to mis-use.

nagromme

Jan 27, 2006, 09:19 PM

And I still think having MacBook and MacBook Pro could provide for some consumer confusion, but I guess it kinda makes sense.
It confuses us :D (me included--until I get used to it) but it's LESS confusing for the huge masses of people who don't even KNOW that a PowerBook and an iBook are in fact Macs. Accumulating mindshare for "Mac" is a good idea I think.

It also allows there to be more than just two laptop lines: you can then have multiple MacBook names, just like we have had the iPod nano, iPod shuffle, iPod mini, iPod photo... In fact, there might never be a "plain MacBook." The iBook replacement might have a two-part name.

For instance, maybe sometime there will be a Mac subnotebook--in some ways more powerful than an iBook/MacBook, in some ways less... smaller than an iBook/MacBook screen yet with the aluminum case of a MacBook Pro. What to call it? Use the consumer name or the pro name? With MacBook it's not an issue: they can use a third name if they wish. (MacBook Express, MacBook Nano, MacBook Madonna Special Edition, whatever). It's all still "MacBooks" and is still unified branding in peoples' minds. Which is something iBook and PowerBook did not achieve--they were separate from each other AND they were separate from the "Mac" name.

Off-tangent a little - is there a chance that iSight models would be banned in some places?
I'd say so, yes. A camera's a camera, and they're banned some places.

A lot of gyms ban the use of camera phones in the showers. Now you won't even be able to use your iBook in the shower :(

The Griffin iDuctTape will disable the camera if needed, though.

asherman13

Jan 27, 2006, 09:21 PM

This rumor is giving me doubts about ordering a MacBook Pro. The only reason I haven't gotten a new laptop yet (my HDD died on my G3 iBook) is because I wanted to read user opinions of the MBP. The iSight (and, I suppose, Front Row) is really important to me, since I'll be abroad next year and I can use it to talk to my family here at home (we already have an older iSight for talking with family elsewhere around the world). Now there are rumors about an i/Mac-Book with iSight and Front Row? I may have to wait a bit longer...:rolleyes:

nagromme

Jan 27, 2006, 09:25 PM

This rumor is giving me doubts about ordering a MacBook Pro.
Waiting is ALWAYS a good idea with computers. You tend to get more power, lower cost, and more choices if you wait. Until you really need/want a machine, and until you're giving up things you want/need to be DOING with it. Then it's time to stop waiting :)

At the present, although the 15.4" MacBook is the ideal size for many (maybe most) people, I'm sure that waiting will reveal new options--in size AND price. For instance I'm waiting to see what kind of smaller Core Duo Mac Book comes out (if any). Then I can decide between that or waiting for a quad-Conroe tower.

MrCrowbar

Jan 27, 2006, 09:27 PM

iSight everywhere is nice. It'll be like cell phones: every one got a camera, but with iChat (and skype once they get video workinfg for OSX), it actually serves a purpose. Not to forget PhotoBooth :p

But I checked for the proce difference of the core solo and core duo. It's 20 bucks of difference for same frequency. Actually intel doesn't really make core solos. The available core solo is a duo where one of the chips is disabled afterwards. So productions costs are the same. (I've had a similar thing once when I vought a Athlon 800 for my PC and found out it was actually a 1000 MHz Model. With some tweaks I had it up to the native Speed on 1000 MHz.)

So I think the Macbooks will get the slowest Core Duo available (when it will be much cheeper) so Rosetta will run smoothly. At the same time as the MacBooks get the update, I think there will also be an upgrade on the Pro line with 17" (and I pray for a 12") model.

nslyax

Jan 27, 2006, 09:30 PM

With rumors of the iBook going to a single 13" widescreen model, and the 12" PowerBook being dropped, it would be possible to allow the "iMacBook" higher specs than possible over the last few years. The iBooks competed much more with the 12" PowerBook than the 15", so with the 12" out of the picture the iMacBook could have slightly higher specs without the risk of cannibalizing the Powerbook line. A CoreDuo seems possible, along with iSight and such, but extended monitors very unlikely. Video RAM I would probably say 64MB, to keep off the MacBook Pro's heels and keep price down some.

Just my $.02

dongmin

Jan 27, 2006, 09:31 PM

The MB Pros start at $1999 which is pretty high. I doubt Apple will introduce the new 13" MacBooks at under $1000. That's one part of the AI report that just doesn't make sense. If the Superdrive is the only difference between the two models, then the price difference will only be a couple hundred bucks. So we'll have one at $1000, the superdrive version at $1200-1300, and the MB Pros at $2000??? Doesn't make much sense to me. Too much of a gap. I'm expecting at least three models to bridge the gap: $999, $1299, and $1599.

BTW, including iSight, IR remote, 1.67 ghz Core Solo, 13" widescreen LCD, and iLife '06 for $999 would be a hell of a deal.

hayesk

Jan 27, 2006, 09:32 PM

asherman13

Jan 27, 2006, 09:33 PM

Off-tangent a little - is there a chance that iSight models would be banned in some places?

I've been in a number of places that force you to leave camera phones at the front desk, slightly smaller than an iBook, but same principle/risk. Perhaps a risk for MacBook Pro users, rather than the target audience of the iBook, although Schools have also banned camera devices in the past, due to mis-use.

I think there's a difference between camera phones and laptops with built-in iSight cameras. The laptop, due to the position of the iSight, directs the camera at and only at the user of the laptop, whereas camera phones usually only direct the camera outwards. I mean, it'll be pretty obvious if you're trying to get a picture of something inappropriate with a built-in iSight, right?

On another tangent...my ideal i/Mac-Book specs would be (this is what I would get, BTO):

+1.4Ghz Intel Core Solo
80GB HDD
512MB RAM, expandable to 1.5GB
13" Wider-screen (like 15.4 vs. 15.2)
built-in iSight and Front Row
64MB VRAM (I'd prefer more, but then I'd probably get a MBP)

for a price of: $1200 or so.

asherman13

Jan 27, 2006, 09:40 PM

Actually intel doesn't really make core solos. The available core solo is a duo where one of the chips is disabled afterwards. So productions costs are the same.

Does that mean that one could, with some tinkering, enable the other core? Hypothetically, of course...:p

BTW, including iSight, IR remote, 1.67 ghz Core Solo, 13" widescreen LCD, and iLife '06 for $999 would be a hell of a deal.

That would be nice...:cool:

eXan

Jan 27, 2006, 10:08 PM

They can keep the design, but make a better keyboard (like on PowerBooks, but in white would be nice).

Also include a nice GPU, like X1300 (I doubt they'll put X1800 in it :D )

WillMak

Jan 27, 2006, 10:08 PM

I don't think having an isight on a laptop will cause issues. Aren't restuarants and coffeeshops allowed to have cameras in their bathrooms?

Eidorian

Jan 27, 2006, 10:14 PM

Looks like I'll be getting a Rev. B MacBook Pro then...

I need my dual-core and VRAM. :cool:

Legacy

Jan 27, 2006, 10:36 PM

I still hope there is room for a 13" MacBook Pro at $1499..the MacBook should retain its $999/1299 price tag. Main drawbacks to this will be:

Intel Core SOLO processors
X1300 Chipset w/ 64Mb VRAM
Possibly retain CDRW/DVD Combi on the cheaper model
FrontRow ONLY with no iSight on any of the models
No Modem built-in, and despite rumours I'm still betting bye bye to firewire..

Advantages will be:

Old PowerBook quality displays (finally)
Retain Airport and Bluetooth
Better form-factor and newer software (iLife 06..dunno if its currently bundled with the iBooks)
Same Prices

The MacBook Pro 13" should come with a Duo Processor and iSight and 128Megs of VRAM (X1600 I think is too farfetched for a $1499 computer with a Core Duo and iSight built in)

Remeber folks, lets not dream..this is Apple they always seem to 'think different'...even to the consumer :rolleyes:

weg

Jan 27, 2006, 10:36 PM

Hopefully, they'll use Core-Duo chips rather than the upcoming Core-Solo chips. Also, Apple should put a higher-rez screen and allow extended-video rather than just mirroring.

Of course they will. Why shouldn't Apple keep up the tradition to make the iBook faster and cheaper than the professional line (=McBook, nowadays)? ;-)

Laser47

Jan 27, 2006, 10:42 PM

Seriously, why does everyone say that the ibook wont have an iSight. I think an iSight would be more appropriate for a consumer laptop rather than a professional laptop.
Hmm if they keep the iBook name, although I seriously doubt it their ad campaign can be;
"iBook meet iSight" or something along those lines.

Oh I cant wait until they announce the new MacBook'

MacinDoc

Jan 27, 2006, 10:43 PM

The new iBook (MacBook) will almost certainly have a Core Solo processor, otherwise it will cannibalize MacBook Pro sales. Furthermore, the recent article which I believe was in Forbes about how much Apple is paying for the Core Duo implies that it is a very expensive chip (Probably more than twice as much as the G4 in the iBook), and putting it in an iBook would cut profit margins dramatically.
If Apple goes with the Core Solo, it will not be because of price - the price difference between the Core Solo and the Core Duo is less than 40 dollars. If it is the Core Solo, it will only be for reasons of heat and space.

More likely that the MBP will get a processor upgrade at the same time to differentiate it from the iBook (remember, the iMac is still the iMac, not iExpress or Mac Express). After all, Apple will now have to keep the MBP near the cutting edge of mobile technology, since it is easy to compare its hardware with that of other manufacturers.

I agree with Legacy that X1300 is a likely choice for video, although Intel's improved integrated graphics (ducks head to avoid flames) might also be an option and would help offset the additional cost of the Core processor.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

Eidorian

Jan 27, 2006, 10:46 PM

Legacy

Jan 27, 2006, 10:51 PM

If Apple goes with the Core Solo, it will not be because of price - the price difference between the Core Solo and the Core Duo is less than 40 dollars. If it is the Core Solo, it will only be for reasons of heat and space.

More likely that the MBP will get a processor upgrade at the same time to differentiate it from the iBook (remember, the iMac is still the iMac, not iExpress or Mac Express). After all, Apple will now have to keep the MBP near the cutting edge of mobile technology, since it is easy to compare its hardware with that of other manufacturers.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

I think MacBook will be Solo for the reasons above and also the differentiation factor. Until MB Pro can use the Merom 64 bit processors (which wont be realistically available until Autumn), the Solo will be the only dif. between a consumer and pro laptop. When Merom comes out, Apple will bombard us with the 64bit transition in the MB Pro, which will allow the MacBook to go Intel Duo Yonah..seems logical to me..

On the point about the iSight being far more important at a consumer level. Yes that is a very true point and evidently a very good selling point for the current iMac range. However, since the ineffiency of IBM to deliver a portable G5 and indeed Freescales mediocre G4 offerings, the discrepancy between the iLine has grown so much that we are not at the stage of the iMac being better than the top of the range Mac Laptop (MacBook Pro)...I think the ideology of 'iMac to go' is long past its sell-by date.

If we are to see an iSight in the MacBook it HAS to be of a lower resolution, possible that of the original iSight. This should cut costs and allow some differentiation between the Consumer and Pro level. More importantly, it satisfies the consumer who wants a nice lil cam for webchats and on-the-go photos, while the consumer gets a better value camera for his money with higher resolution capabilities.

I think the most important thing here people is the reversible equilibrium the is Apple <===> Customer, both must be happy and satisfied. If the equilibrium is somewhat imbalanced (as is the case with the PowerBook range) you get problems from the consumer end. If it is imbalanced from Apple (ie very small profit margin), the company can't survive and invest in future developments..its a two way game ;)

Analog Kid

Jan 27, 2006, 10:58 PM

Is Apple using Front Row as a way of pushing people to buy new machines? I've got a Dual G5 with a Cinema display that I use for DVDs in lieu of a TV-- Just rotate it 180º and watch from the couch which faces my desk. FR would be perfect for that. For now I get by with a bluetooth mouse.

I can't understand why they'd think FR is better put on a portable with a 13" display, lousy sound, and barely enough battery to get through a single DVD than it would be to make it available for their pro desktops.

The only hardware restriction I can think of is the receiver for that IR remote-- but Apple intentionally made the (bad) decision to not use BT for the remote. No reason they couldn't sell a USB IR receiver, though.

My worry is that they're starting to do what they do with the iPods. The next generation iPod is going to carry new software features. There's no technical reason why those features can't be made available to previous owners, but they aren't. Presumably that's to encourage people to upgrade... If they do that with their Macs, I'll be pretty pissed.

MacinDoc

Jan 27, 2006, 10:59 PM

I think MacBook will be Solo for the reasons above and also the differentiation factor. Until MB Pro can use the Merom 64 bit processors (which wont be realistically available until Autumn), the Solo will be the only dif. between a consumer and pro laptop. When Merom comes out, Apple will bombard us with the 64bit transition in the MB Pro, which will allow the MacBook to go Intel Duo Yonah..seems logical to me..
The Core Duo will have speed bumps before Merom comes out. This is Intel, not IBM or Freescale. And if Apple doesn't upgrade its pro chips when everyone else does, well, we know where Apple's sales will go.
The Griffin iDuctTape will disable the camera if needed, though.
ROFL :D

Austin.xstone

Jan 27, 2006, 11:00 PM

Finaly some news on the new ibook. Sounds cool.

Im still disipointed that it wasn't released at MWSF, but ohwell.

I hope it does have a Dual Core Chip - im suprised about the iSight though.

Does anyone know where they are going to be released? :confused:

nagromme

Jan 27, 2006, 11:03 PM

But I checked for the proce difference of the core solo and core duo. It's 20 bucks of difference for same frequency. Actually intel doesn't really make core solos. The available core solo is a duo where one of the chips is disabled afterwards. So productions costs are the same.
As I understand it, it's not that they necessarily disable a perfectly good core (although they could if Core Solo demand called for that), but that one core may have tested as a failure.

So Intel has ONE design, not two, being made--very smart and efficient! But a dual-core chip has a greater chance of being useless if one core tests bad. Why waste the chip? Intel has designed it so the bad core can be disabled and the remaining core used as a Core Solo. Core Solo is thus simply "rejected" Core Duos.

As for the small price difference--I don't doubt that, but I don't think it's that somple: by that reasoning NOBODY would use Core Solo. And yet they will, or else Intel will drop the price. If it makes sense for ANYONE to use Core Solo, it makes just as much sense for Apple. Even if the only savings is $20 to Apple ($30 to us?) plus whatever savings (money and/or space) results from needing less cooling.

So unless the Core Solo is a product priced so that NOBODY would use it, I think the low-end Apple laptops will. I'd love ALL Macs to be dual, despite having entry-level pricing... but don't hold your breath for it.

Legacy

Jan 27, 2006, 11:03 PM

The Core Duo will have speed bumps before Merom comes out. This is Intel, not IBM or Freescale. And if Apple doesn't upgrade its pro chips when everyone else does, well, we know where Apple's sales will go.

Yes but those speed bumps, I don't think can be a significant enough differentiating factor between the lines, although with the G4 that has largely been the case. How much faster is a 1.86Ghz Duo going to be from a 1.67Ghz (which will probs be the difference between the MacBook line and the entry MacBook Pro).

I don't know. I mean I would personally hope for the Duo for obvious reasons, but as I keep saying this is Apple. If a company goes far enough to seek 4200rpm drives in order to differentiate between a Pro and Consumer laptop, using Solo in preference to Duo (together with the fact that 40$ will help a company that will be on a very low profit margin with the adoption of the Intel processors) seems a very probable result to me.

MacinDoc

Jan 27, 2006, 11:18 PM

Yes but those speed bumps, I don't think can be a significant enough differentiating factor between the lines, although with the G4 that has largely been the case. How much faster is a 1.86Ghz Duo going to be from a 1.67Ghz (which will probs be the difference between the MacBook line and the entry MacBook Pro).

I don't know. I mean I would personally hope for the Duo for obvious reasons, but as I keep saying this is Apple. If a company goes far enough to seek 4200rpm drives in order to differentiate between a Pro and Consumer laptop, using Solo in preference to Duo (together with the fact that 40$ will help a company that will be on a very low profit margin with the adoption of the Intel processors) seems a very probable result to me.
MBP is already at 1.86 GHz, other notebooks are using the Core Duo 2 GHz chip, and Intel is already selling a Core Duo at 2.16 GHz. I suspect there will be at least a 2.33 GHz Core Duo (or even 2.5 GHz) available by the time the iBook is introduced in Q2, and there is certainly enough room between a 2.33 GHz Duo and a 1.66 GHz Duo. Of course, the display resolution, memory capacity, graphics and ports will also differentiate them.

Natron

Jan 27, 2006, 11:20 PM

kretzy

Jan 27, 2006, 11:22 PM

These predictions seem pretty realistic and expected. I think the move to a 13'' is a great idea - the 14'' was too big and clunky and for me the 12'' was a little bit too small.

Policar

Jan 27, 2006, 11:29 PM

Is that, unlike Apple, Intel has their roadmap public for years ahead. Sure, it's largely speculative, but you get a pretty good idea of what to expect. Also, Intel's availible processors are clearly listed by model number (and price!) so guessing specs is NOT that hard. No 2.5ghz MacBooks coming out, and no 1.4ghz iBooks. Why? Those chips do not exist.

There will be nothing significantly faster than 2.16ghz availible until the Merom. The 17'' MacBook will probably max out at 2ghz because the 2.16ghz chip is VERY VERY VERY expensive. The reason Apple didn't put a 2ghz chip in the 15'' MacBook was to leave room for a faster 17'' version.

The Core Solo ONLY goes as slow as 1.67ghz. So we won't get slower than that. Furthermore, the Core Solo chip is about $30 dollars less than the Core Duo in quantity. At Apple's discount, it's probably a $20 difference. So if Apple does not include it in the high end iBook it will ONLY be because they want to cripple the machine to avoid competing with the MacBook. Iroinically, the Core Solo actually IS a Core Duo with one core shut off. So...Apple would be crippling their iBook by using a crippled Intel processor. This would make me very mad at Apple, especially since dual cores are key to Rosetta performance.

Intel does, however, have some cool ultra-low power chips, meaning that Apple code feasibly release an ultra-portable. An expensive, one, though. The Core Duo is absurdly pricey by Intel standards.

DrEasy

Jan 27, 2006, 11:29 PM

1.67 GHZ G4!! With replacement to core duo, once price comes down and merom is out and in macbook pro. And put a frickin' superdrive in... That and 13 inch wide screen, and the isight, and you have a pretty darn nice ~1200 machine.
The voice of reason!!! They could have upgraded the iBooks to the fastest G4 available the day they announced the MacBook Pro. And they would have had my $$$.

The outdated PowerBook kept the iBook at low-specs, but now there's no more reason to do so!

Glenn Wolsey

Jan 27, 2006, 11:31 PM

I'm buying the lowest spec'd machine as my portable writing machine.

mambodancer

Jan 28, 2006, 12:01 AM

I'm buying one. iSight iBook = bargain! Too bad front row won't launch VIDEO_TS files...

Try downloading the FREE copy of MediaCentral from Equinux at
http://www.equinux.com/us/start/index.html

It is a lot like Frontrow and it will launch your VIDEO_TS folders.

----
There are a few little buggy things (or rather features that don't work quite well enough-I can't connect to the Trailers) and it's front end isn't quiet as nice as FrontRow but you can't complain about the price.

andrewag

Jan 28, 2006, 12:06 AM

Wow, the ibook is starting to sound more desirable then the macbook pro!

MacinDoc

Jan 28, 2006, 12:10 AM

The voice of reason!!! They could have upgraded the iBooks to the fastest G4 available the day they announced the MacBook Pro. And they would have had my $$$.

The outdated PowerBook kept the iBook at low-specs, but now there's no more reason to do so!
They can't, because the MBP is currently only 15", plus pro buyers will still buy the PowerBook G4s if they need to use the pro apps now. But no new models will be produced with G4 chips, because Apple wants to complete the transition ASAP, and will not waste any energy refreshing G4-based offerings.
Is that, unlike Apple, Intel has their roadmap public for years ahead. Sure, it's largely speculative, but you get a pretty good idea of what to expect. Also, Intel's availible processors are clearly listed by model number (and price!) so guessing specs is NOT that hard. No 2.5ghz MacBooks coming out, and no 1.4ghz iBooks. Why? Those chips do not exist.

There will be nothing significantly faster than 2.16ghz availible until the Merom. The 17'' MacBook will probably max out at 2ghz because the 2.16ghz chip is VERY VERY VERY expensive. The reason Apple didn't put a 2ghz chip in the 15'' MacBook was to leave room for a faster 17'' version.

The Core Solo ONLY goes as slow as 1.67ghz. So we won't get slower than that. Furthermore, the Core Solo chip is about $30 dollars less than the Core Duo in quantity. At Apple's discount, it's probably a $20 difference. So if Apple does not include it in the high end iBook it will ONLY be because they want to cripple the machine to avoid competing with the MacBook. Iroinically, the Core Solo actually IS a Core Duo with one core shut off. So...Apple would be crippling their iBook by using a crippled Intel processor. This would make me very mad at Apple, especially since dual cores are key to Rosetta performance.
Where in Intel's roadmap does it show that there will be no speed bumps for the Core Duo for the next 6 months? Of course there will be speed bumps. The fastest chip will, however, continue to be significantly more expensive then the rest, and will probably not make its way into the MBP. And Apple CAN underclock chips (I know, it sounds stupid, but so is buying a Core Solo for the same price as a Core Duo) if it feels it really needs to cripple the iBook to differentiate them from the MacBook Pro. Underclocking also reduces power consumption significantly.

Of course, Apple may not even use the Core chips in the new iBook, and could use the Celeron M instead (it is a consumer notebook, after all). This would take quite a hit in Rosetta, however, and I think it is an unlikely choice.

buryyourbrideau

Jan 28, 2006, 12:15 AM

BORING!

I am really happy that i got a MacBook pro instead of sitting around and waiting for the iBook.

Geez, they really need a redesign, it has been way toooooo long!

p0intblank

Jan 28, 2006, 12:32 AM

I call this rumor spot-on. Not only because it's from AppleInsider, but because this is exactly what we have been expecting for a while now. Well the included iSight and Front Row software is kind of a surprise to me, but you know where I am coming from. It would be nice to see a new design, but the current one is just fine how it is, much like the PowerBook becoming the MacBook Pro.

powerbook911

Jan 28, 2006, 12:33 AM

asherman13

Jan 28, 2006, 12:40 AM

Almost everybody seems to think that it's time for an iBook design change. What do you guys want to see?

Personally, I would like to keep the polycarbonite (I think) cover, since it has better Airport/Bluetooth reception than aluminum (the PB's and MBP's have the little plastic strips/bezels [respectively] so that the signals can pass through and not be completely hindered by the aluminum). Thinner and widescreen, to a certain degree, would be nice.

beatle888

Jan 28, 2006, 12:41 AM

The new iBook (MacBook) will almost certainly have a Core Solo processor, otherwise it will cannibalize MacBook Pro sales.

how do you know this? all apple would have to do is separate the two lines by Mhz, amongst two duo chips.

magi.sys

Jan 28, 2006, 12:54 AM

by the way

Powerbook 17" => MacBook Extreme
Powerbook 15" => MacBook Pro
Powerbook 12" => MacBook Express (13")
iBook 12" & 14" => iBook (13")

;)

Now, what I wonder is if the EFI will allow us to drop in a Core Duo in place of the Core Solo it will ship with :D

aswitcher

Jan 28, 2006, 01:18 AM

SNIP I'm expecting at least three models to bridge the gap: $999, $1299, and $1599.

BTW, including iSight, IR remote, 1.67 ghz Core Solo, 13" widescreen LCD, and iLife '06 for $999 would be a hell of a deal.

I hope they put in 64meg VRAM, higher res screen than current models, 512 MB ram with decent expansion, audio in/out (5.1 support), heaps better battery life, 100 GB HDD option. And illuminated keyboard option would rock as well..

strange days

Jan 28, 2006, 01:42 AM

i'd like to speculate about the price difference between the Low Voltage Core Duos and the Core Solos...

...Apple could claim they have dual-core in every Mac if they adopt the Low Voltage Duos...

(L)

Jan 28, 2006, 01:57 AM

It sounds pretty lame - Macbook, Macbook Pro. Argh, I just cannot get over the names.

It seems like every other person posting here has some kind of psychological problem with the new laptop names. Why?

Is it mysticism over previous names? Because names change with product changes. Doi. And "Power" is kind of retarded if it doesn't run on a PowerPC chip.

Is it that you don't like Macs? Jobs said he wanted "Mac" in the name of Macintosh-running products, and I think he's right - it IS the biggest part of what sets them apart, ain't it?

I just don't get it. Macbook seems like a good name to me - Macintosh + Notebook = MacBook. Better than Sony T-Series X12951 or whatever crud the competition calls their poop. The other day I saw someone's signature that said "I'll NEVER call it a MacBook" or something...you know, that's just plain irrational. There is already a bias against Mac users in that some people consider them to be marked by irrational behaviour and thinking...let's not further it along by having emotional attachments to product names. I am sure the average Mac consumer doesn't really care that much about the name, MacBook versus PowerBook. Any other company could have chosen to call their machine a powerbook. At least MacBook is distinguishing!

iamfiremansam

Jan 28, 2006, 01:59 AM

WOW!!! All this would be the perfect little notebook. I was hoping for built in isight and frontrow. So they better do it. I've been hanging out to buy an ibook for only a wee while now and this is perfect

(L)

Jan 28, 2006, 02:05 AM

I'm happy I got an iMac and decided to keep my Powerbook G4 12-inch as my portable, for the foreseeable future. I just don't need that much power, when not at my desk.

Nevertheless, I *could* be tempted to sell both the iMac and my Powerbook, if there was a 13-inch MacBook Pro. However, I don't see it happening. I see Apple making a MacBook consumer, with a core solo, which won't be sufficient to me.

I'm sure iBooks will get Core Duos, but not until MacBook Pros get an entirely different chip.

I've got to say, I hope they make a 12" MBP with a far better screen than the 12" PB I use. My PB is new - I won't be replacing it for 2~4 years, probably. With my Mac, it just works, so I'll replace it when it doesn't. Still, some time down the road when it inevitably becomes insufficient, I want to be able to replace it with something stronger but not gigantic. Nothing beats 12" for size. The problem is that even though pros may not value portability as much as I (as a "consumer") do, I'm going to want something small AND powerful. And what about pros that could use small form?

As for the Duo vs normal chips idea, it seems like using Duo in the iBook replacement MacBooks would make sense - just with a lower number, like 0.2~0.4 Ghz lower than the MBP's. Why? Because using a 1.63 Ghz normal processor would be slower than a 1.43 Ghz Duo, wouldn't it? Or am I misinformed? I think it's best if Apple doesn't make weak consumer models, but rather have strong consumer models and stronger pro models.

nagromme

Jan 28, 2006, 02:32 AM

I think it's best if Apple doesn't make weak consumer models, but rather have strong consumer models and stronger pro models.

A Core Solo is not a weak chip by any stretch. And whatever cost savings it has over Core Duo, it will be enough for computer makers to use them. Apple included. Choosing a lower-cost part in a low-end laptop makes sense. With laptop sales ballooning, Apple does still need to have a low-end entry model.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the lowest MacBook have no iSight, no Front Row, and integrated Intel graphics. Such a machine would still be VERY capable for most tasks, and there's a huge market for something that low-cost.

But whether that happens or not, I expect the low end of MacBooks (the iBook replacements) to use the least expensive of the new Intel chips--and that means one CPU core. But still a fast core compared to a G4 or a Pentium M.

And what many people are asking for here (an iBook with high-end features like dual cores, lighted keyboards, etc.) isn't so much a super-iBook as a smaller MacBook Pro. Names, schmames... I'm 100% in agreement with that concept!

ibook30

Jan 28, 2006, 02:38 AM

Sounds like a good move (if they make it) to keep the budget line competitive. But let's face it - you can get a budget PC lap top for $600 - if apple doesn't add these types of features to their budget laptop - it will fall short. I (like other posters) would love to see the super drive become a standard across the various product lines. We will see....

mattster16

Jan 28, 2006, 03:28 AM

Intel Core SOLO processors
X1300 Chipset w/ 64Mb VRAM
Possibly retain CDRW/DVD Combi on the cheaper model
FrontRow ONLY with no iSight on any of the models
No Modem built-in, and despite rumours I'm still betting bye bye to firewire..

I really disagree about the firewire. How many camcorders that you buy today use firewire as the main digital video transfer method? Pretty much all. What would iMovie and iDVD be good for if consumers can't get video into their computer? Dropping firewire makes absolutely no sense.

I also think that Apple will create one single laptop line. MacBook. This would just make sense and would also be very easy to understand for the consumer. This is the MacBook..and this is the MacBook PRO. But then what would they call the pro line? iMac Pro? :rolleyes:

Mechcozmo

Jan 28, 2006, 03:30 AM

Liquidog

Jan 28, 2006, 03:35 AM

It seems like every other person posting here has some kind of psychological problem with the new laptop names. Why?

Is it mysticism over previous names? Because names change with product changes. Doi. And "Power" is kind of retarded if it doesn't run on a PowerPC chip.

Is it that you don't like Macs? Jobs said he wanted "Mac" in the name of Macintosh-running products, and I think he's right - it IS the biggest part of what sets them apart, ain't it?

I just don't get it. Macbook seems like a good name to me - Macintosh + Notebook = MacBook. Better than Sony T-Series X12951 or whatever crud the competition calls their poop. The other day I saw someone's signature that said "I'll NEVER call it a MacBook" or something...you know, that's just plain irrational. There is already a bias against Mac users in that some people consider them to be marked by irrational behaviour and thinking...let's not further it along by having emotional attachments to product names. I am sure the average Mac consumer doesn't really care that much about the name, MacBook versus PowerBook. Any other company could have chosen to call their machine a powerbook. At least MacBook is distinguishing!

So very true. It really doesn't matter if a name sounds cool to people who already love macs... it matters if it sticks in the heads of people who hear it, and are in the market for a computer. I think the people who've said that they're never getting a macbook based on the name are probably people who weren't likely to get one anyways.

ALL THAT SAID, who cares what the call the new ibook. Widescreen, faster cpu, same price: that's already a better deal than what is already still a decent deal. I think superdrive standard is a big fat waste of money. Built in iSight would be cool and is much more likely to be included than faster graphics, more VRAM, or whathaveyou. The iBook line hasn't ever been about allowing people to do things very quickly, but allowing them to do things that they can't do on windows laptops, such as easy video editing and music creation. iSight adds another tool to that toolbox, letting people do more than ever with the computer. Getting all caught up in making things faster and faster and faster has never been the apple design philosophy. Empowering the user has. That's why I think the Apple Insider call on iSight is spot on, and why we're not getting faster this or better that - I don't even think we'll get core duo. In the end though, I don't think it's a bad thing. Now that Intel is on board the speedbumps will come faster than ever anyways.

Kelmon

Jan 28, 2006, 03:37 AM

I'm not really in the market for an iBook (or whatever the name turns out to be) since I'm looking for the baddest laptop I can buy to operate as my primary computer. Currently I'm still using a Titanium PowerBook but am aiming, I hope, for a Merom-based 17" beast at the end of the year. Given this an iBook just isn't going to be something that I'm interested in but would make a nice computer for my wife when the current PowerBook needs to be retired.

All this said, the addition of iSight to another line of computers as built-in option will continue to make video chatting something that might actually happen. One of the primary reasons why I have never bothered to buy a web-cam is that no one I know actually has one, but if they become standard then all that will change. A Skype upgrade would certainly help move this concept into reality since I don't know many other people with a Mac (and therefore iChat AV) but I do know quite a few with Skype on their PC. Bring it on.

MacSA

Jan 28, 2006, 03:37 AM

...a CDRW version for just under $1000? Haaaaaaaaaaaa what a joke in mid 2006. The often heard "But Mac hardware is more expensive" would be fully justified"

Elrond39

Jan 28, 2006, 05:03 AM

I don't mean to focus solely on the aesthetic factor, but...
This spring Apple is expected to roll-out the a new series of iBook consumer laptops built around a 13-inch widescreen display. The new models will sport the first major design revision to the iBook in several years and come bundled with both Front Row and the Apple Remote, people familiar with the company's plans tell AppleInsider.
from the article, which has apparently gone unnoticed by many posters...(my bolding)
Oh, and one more thing...
One person who claims to have caught a glimpse of the nearly-finalized prototype describes it as a slightly-smaller cousin to the recently introduced MacBook Pro, but clad in iMac white.
Of interest, those people familiar with Apple's plans say the company at one point seriously considered adding a black-colored Intel iBook model to its offering. However, no such model has ever been seen, and with the development of the new laptops winding down, this option seems unlikely.

As for the more important stuff.... I would love a Duo, but I can see Apple's point in using a Solo for now. Don't be surprised if, if/when the MBP are boosted later in the year, the MB (iB) get Duos.

iSight and FrontRow would be nice, very consumer oriented, and that is what the MB (iB) is after all.

Bonte

Jan 28, 2006, 05:57 AM

Of course, Apple may not even use the Core chips in the new iBook, and could use the Celeron M instead (it is a consumer notebook, after all). This would take quite a hit in Rosetta, however, and I think it is an unlikely choice.

Rosetta is far to important at the moment so it has to be a core duo for the iBook. 6 months from now the iBook with a core duo and a spiced up Macbook pro seems very plausible to me. Then all G5's go quad and the mini turning into a media center device.

Chupa Chupa

Jan 28, 2006, 06:06 AM

It's silly to think (dream) that Apple is going to make a consumer laptop as full featured as the $1299 Intel iMac and sell it for $999. Not going to happen.

It's also silly to think (dream) that Apple is going to make a computer laptop as fully featured as the $1999 MBP and sell it for 30% less under a different name.

No, the next iBook, MacBook, or whatever it's named, will certainly be crippled just as Apple crippled the current iBook. It will be a great machine, no doubt, but don't expect it to compete with the MBP.

Also, Front Row will be part of the OS in 10.5, just as iChat is now part of 10.4. Apple is doing this to better compete with Vista, which will incorporate Win Media Center in it's consumer versions. (There will no longer be a Media Center version of Win).

javiercr

Jan 28, 2006, 06:57 AM

Hopefully, they'll use Core-Duo chips rather than the upcoming Core-Solo chips. Also, Apple should put a higher-rez screen and allow extended-video rather than just mirroring.

It won't be Core Duo, apple has to differenciate the MacBookPro (powerbook) from the lower end ibook (MacBook?)

Hattig

Jan 28, 2006, 07:13 AM

Core Solo is $40 less than the Core Duo. It's a Core Duo with a defective core, so basically an updated Pentium M in that it is single core with 2MB cache.

Certainly I think the iBook will have:

- Celeron M based upon Core Solo (1MB L2 cache).
- Integrated Graphics (Intel GMA950)
- 60GB HD

and it will remain at $999.

If we're lucky, Apple may utilise an X1300 for the graphics instead of the integrated variant. It may only offer this on a higher specification model.

I don't see Apple wanting to lose the $999 pricepoint, so they'll make cuts until they can afford to make one at that price point. Some people said that the 1.33GHz G4 was probably costing Apple $50. The Core Solo is over $200, even if Apple get a volume discount it won't be approaching the G4's price.

Legacy

Jan 28, 2006, 07:32 AM

corywoolf

Jan 28, 2006, 07:38 AM

In other news... there is no news.

Hattig

Jan 28, 2006, 07:49 AM

NO WAY am I paying £700 to buy a laptop with integrated graphics and a Celeron..sorry mate. I know Apple is stingy but not that stingy. That would just make them look silly...
Yeah, but Core Solo isn't much cheaper than Core Duo (i.e., not worth utilising), and I'm fairly certain that the number of cores will be a differentiator between the laptop lines.

It might use an X1300 with HyperMemory (uses system memory, but as PCIe is pretty fast it performs quite well, especially if it has a local memory that is very fast, even if it is small).

Remember it'll have the iSight and the remote control, and the software. That's all worth something. If you're lucky it'll be $899...

Legacy

Jan 28, 2006, 07:53 AM

Yeah, but Core Solo isn't much cheaper than Core Duo (i.e., not worth utilising), and I'm fairly certain that the number of cores will be a differentiator between the laptop lines.

It might use an X1300 with HyperMemory (uses system memory, but as PCIe is pretty fast it performs quite well, especially if it has a local memory that is very fast, even if it is small).

Remember it'll have the iSight and the remote control, and the software. That's all worth something. If you're lucky it'll be $899...

No chance..unless you upgrade the RAM..running OS X on 450Megs of Ram...ouch thats like running XP with 192Mb RAM..

MarcelV

Jan 28, 2006, 07:55 AM

Chupa Chupa

Jan 28, 2006, 08:10 AM

Not necessarily. The 12" iBook and Powerbook have a G4, right? And the iBook G4 didn't cannabalize the PowerBook G4 sales either.

Since Apple only releases sales numbers in the aggregate and not by model, we have NO IDEA. (Personally, I suspect the 12" iBook G4 did canibalize the 12" PB sales)

However, we do know that the majority of current Apple software doesn't run well on a G3, so Apple had no choice but to give the iBook a G4. With the Core Sole being pretty powerful on it's own, Apple isn't forced to give the iBook and MBP chip parity any longer.

As said, there is no reason to expect that the Intel iBook will have anything close to the MBP specs. Apple will cripple it, and it will be at least 30% slower than the slowest MBP. I think the iBook will be a very compelling consumer product, but it will clearly be a consumer product.

Chupa Chupa

Jan 28, 2006, 08:16 AM

Certainly I think the iBook will have:

- Celeron M based upon Core Solo (1MB L2 cache).
- Integrated Graphics (Intel GMA950)
- 60GB HD

I disagree. The Celeron is perhaps the worlds lousiest chip. That is what they put in the $399 Black Friday PC craptops. I doubt Jobs is going to allow the iBook to be contaminated with such a weasly chip. Besides, what right minded person would pay $1000 for a laptop with a Celeron?

Then the Integrated Graphics. That is another no go, and here is why...CORE VIDEO. Integrated Graphics share the CPU memory. That completly undermines the whole theory of Core Video, which uses VRAM to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU RAM to do other tasks. You will never see Integrated Graphics in a Mac unless Jobs completely sells out to Intel.

rockthecasbah

Jan 28, 2006, 08:18 AM

i don't know about the rest of you, but why does Apple feel the need to incorporate cameras in everything now? All they are doing is just tarnishing the beauty of the machines and making them ugly with more bulk up top and cheap looking like..a Compaq or whatever :(

MarcelV

Jan 28, 2006, 08:34 AM

A Skype upgrade would certainly help move this concept into reality since I don't know many other people with a Mac (and therefore iChat AV) but I do know quite a few with Skype on their PC.
If 'Mobile Me' will indeed be true, Skype may not be needed. What if part of Mobile Me is a cross platform iChat/AV AND has a bridge to PSTN? All build into your iTunes account.. Just dreaming?

Hattig

Jan 28, 2006, 08:39 AM

I disagree. The Celeron is perhaps the worlds lousiest chip. That is what they put in the $399 Black Friday PC craptops. I doubt Jobs is going to allow the iBook to be contaminated with such a weasly chip. Besides, what right minded person would pay $1000 for a laptop with a Celeron?

Then the Integrated Graphics. That is another no go, and here is why...CORE VIDEO. Integrated Graphics share the CPU memory. That completly undermines the whole theory of Core Video, which uses VRAM to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU RAM to do other tasks. You will never see Integrated Graphics in a Mac unless Jobs completely sells out to Intel.

CoreVideo uses the GPU to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU to do other tasks.

The memory aspect is irrelevant.

Mac OS X supports intel integrated graphics, and has done since the developer machines. They aren't *that* bad, they just aren't as nice as discrete solutions.

A Celeron M based upon a Yonah core certainly wouldn't be that lousy. It isn't a Celeron based off of a Pentium 4 - they were dire indeed. Indeed the current Celeron Ms (Dothan core) are better than the previous generation Pentium Ms (Banias).

I certainly think a 1.6GHz Celeron M (either current generation or the next generation) would beat a 1.6GHz G4 in most things, apart from SIMD (Altivec/SSE*). And it'd be a lot cheaper.

I don't think you would get better than a system with either:

a) Celeron M with X1300
b) Core Duo with Intel integrated graphics

They've got to cut costs *somewhere* to meeth the price points.

OTOH, the 17" iMac is $1299, and that has a Core Duo and X1600 graphics ... so cut $300 off the price (i.e, about $200 off the BOM) and use laptop components, and you might have the next iBook.

mccldwll

Jan 28, 2006, 08:42 AM

Spring is a long season. Why not announce laptop specs April 1 to ship mid summer, but bring out new mac mini first. Grab more converts and market share in video area, get more bugs out in less demanding environment, then meet demand for back to school LapMac sales.

MarcelV

Jan 28, 2006, 08:48 AM

As said, there is no reason to expect that the Intel iBook will have anything close to the MBP specs. Apple will cripple it, and it will be at least 30% slower than the slowest MBP. I think the iBook will be a very compelling consumer product, but it will clearly be a consumer product.
Agree with you, it will be a consumer product. But so is the iBook. There's no difference. I have to disagree with anyone that will think it will have single core. Any rosetta app will be much too slow. Second, Firewire will be there. Too may consumer camcorders rely on this. But it will be 400, not 800. No need for in consumer models.

but what do you mean by crippled? Do you expect 256MB or 128MB of vram? Not in a low/mid budget laptop. That's just unrealistic. But that's not crippling a product. It's just balancing product between cost and features, while still providing an adequate product for the majority of consumers.

thejadedmonkey

Jan 28, 2006, 09:06 AM

I've been hoping Apple would put out a barebones laptop in the $600-$800 range. Maybe this is where the iBook is headed.

iBook - no iSight, no Front Row, single core, $799 and $999

MacBook - iSight, Front Row with remote, single core (maybe duo), $1299 and $1599

I'm not sure what the screen sizes would be in this configuration, though.

I could definitely see the iBook scaling down a bit to the Mac Mini's level. With such a basic computer, I just wonder how many people would need an iSight, or use it if they had it. I think that in the education market, especially, an iSight is not necessary.

Also, if it cuts the price down, I think cutting the iSight is a good idea.

The iSight/FR will never be cut. The whole idea of a mac mini is to entice users to switch. A cheep @** desktop that has ALL of the functionability of a powermac, but is just so slow that if you want to really USE it for anything more than email and the like, you can't without it lagging or upgrading it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see apple introduce a new iBook, that's the equivilent of the iPod Nano. über thin, and uses an iPod hard drive.
13.3" screen
solo core
64mb graphics card
40-60gig hard drive
512mb RAM (only one DIMM like the mac mini)
CD+RW/DVD drive
no PC card slots
BT, Firewire 400, USB 2.0, and wireless G connectivity all standard
<<1" thick.

It would retail for around $799 +/- and have no configuration options to save costs.

P.S. Does anyone know what key combo to use to get the +/- as one "letter"?

Chupa Chupa

Jan 28, 2006, 09:10 AM

CoreVideo uses the GPU to do intensive video effects, freeing the CPU to do other tasks.

The memory aspect is irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

And that is why programs dependant on Core Video (like Motion) get faster as VRAM increases?

But hey, here is what Apple writes on it's Core Image info page
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/:

"When a programmable GPU is present, Core Image utilizes the graphics card for image processing operations, freeing the CPU for other tasks. And if you have a high-performance card with increased video memory (VRAM), you'll find real-time responsiveness across a wide variety of operations."

Did you note how increased VRAM is needed for real time effects?

As I said, you'll never see shared memory integrated video on a Mac.

Chupa Chupa

Jan 28, 2006, 09:17 AM

what do you mean by crippled? Do you expect 256MB or 128MB of vram? Not in a low/mid budget laptop. That's just unrealistic. But that's not crippling a product.

No, by crippling I mean Apple intentionally slowing the bus down, underclocking the chip, lowering the cache, or something to make the hardware 20% or so slower than the low-end MBP.

But with iMovie now having real-time effects I do expect that 128MB VRAM will be the min. standard for Intel Macs. You can already get a 256MB card for the iMac which is pretty amazing considering how behind the times Mac video cards have been in the past.

Policar

Jan 28, 2006, 09:22 AM

Where in Intel's roadmap does it show that there will be no speed bumps for the Core Duo for the next 6 months? Of course there will be speed bumps. The fastest chip will, however, continue to be significantly more expensive then the rest, and will probably not make its way into the MBP. And Apple CAN underclock chips (I know, it sounds stupid, but so is buying a Core Solo for the same price as a Core Duo) if it feels it really needs to cripple the iBook to differentiate them from the MacBook Pro.

In Intel's roadmap it shows a single speed boost to 2.33mhz later in the year, then the introduction of Merom. So, theoretically, we could get a 2.16ghz 17'' MacBook at a 2ghz 15'' but it's NOT very likely since that's not significant news. So I'm sticking with the fastest MacBook beign 2ghz until Merom's release. (Which is not so far away.) So please, realize that these roadmaps ARE public and aren't magic. Sure, they can be changed, but it's very rare that a random faster processor appears. Intel's not all smoke and mirrors like Apple is, and what we gain in performance will be lost in "surprise factor," at least in terms of the excitement of new announcements. On the plus side, this means Apple must rely on innovating instead of putting in a new processor and making up numbers. (4-5 times faster!....hardly.)

Lastly, Apple can't just underclock Intel's chips. There's crippling, then there's being unbelievably stupid. The backlash would be remarkable, and the process by which you underclock a chip (adjusting the multiplier in the BIOS) is convoluted and not necessarily stable since it requires underclocking the RAM, too, I believe. Apple's not doing it. A Core Solo (dumb as it may be) is realistic, although bad for the consumer. If the low end model has it, fine. It's a savings of $30. If the high end model has it, it's just crippling the computer. Maybe we'll get a 13'' MacBook that runs that fast, though, to compete with the current 12''?

And I wouldn't be surprised if Apple used cheaper RAM in the iBook, too, since the RAM in the MacBook is extremely high performance.

Beck446

Jan 28, 2006, 09:51 AM

Updating the design ("form factor") is the most important thing here. The current design is really starting to look thick and old... The ibook could be half as thick as it is now, especially if they use a core solo and if they use intel's integrated graphics chip. This thing could be TINY

intlplby

Jan 28, 2006, 09:54 AM

with regards to front row with remote, they may advertise it as "front row capable"

kind of like when the airport extreme cards were optional in the powerbooks.... it said "airport extreme ready" as in you can have the airport extreme inside but you have to buy that part yourself.....

i could see it having front row and the IR port, but if you want to use that part you need to buy the remote separately for $40-50.....

maya

Jan 28, 2006, 10:00 AM

P.S. Does anyone know what key combo to use to get the +/- as one "letter"?

Option+Shift+"+" = ±

smharmon

Jan 28, 2006, 10:01 AM

It sounds pretty lame - Macbook, Macbook Pro. Argh, I just cannot get over the names.

If you think about it, doesn't iBook sound just as dumb? I love mine, but the whole "i" thing is old, and doesn't make much sense... the whole "WOW" factor of the "i"nternet has worn off. MacBook makes much more since... and I feel the same way about PowerBook, as both units use a "Power" PC processor...

motuman

Jan 28, 2006, 10:59 AM

Here's the main issues with this new iBook / Mac Book, (Mini Mac)

- If it has only a Intel Core Solo, I don't think it will be substantially faster than the current G4 (save the system bus) which is much faster, 667 MHz).

- I am hearing the Core Solo actually costs Apple close to the same as the Core Duo (maybe 50-100 bucks more).

So if this is true and it becomes public knowledge, how will this sit with Apple consumers.
Not well.

It will be exposed as a blatant and obvious attempt by Apple to "cripple" the iBook, in order to have some reason to purchase the $2000.00 Mac Book Pro, thus driving up sales of the Mac Book Pro.

Not going to fly with me. I would hate to be a Core Solo iBook purchaser to find out it is 25 %, maybe 50 % faster than a G4 PB, not good.

So there is no reason Apple should use a Core Solo in the iBook, except for this ploy of driving people to spend much more money on the Mac Book Pro

- White is so old, and to me a disaster. It needs to go. I am a Mac Sys admin, and embarrassed by the "white" and the thickness, please a New Design

- Sleeker, silver, black, something.

It seems to me on the Mac Book Pro and the new Intel iMac Apple is just rushing to get the Intel machines "out there", just to do it. That's fine, but I am not going to be the guinea pig on the Rev A's.

We see no radical design changes, Yet.

Why?, because the next generation Mac Books and maybe iBooks will have the new cases.

In fact I bet the cases are already finished and Apple is just waiting until June / July to introduce them.

Here's to hoping the new iBook / Mac Book have the new case designs, I do think a new iBook and Mini Mac are slated to be introduced very soon, like Feb. March.

And the Mini Mac. It also better have a Core Duo (option) and still be cheap or I ain't buying, and it better not be "White".

Also, this Summer / Fall the Intel Merom chip comes out, so maybe that is when we see newly redesigned Apple cases.

I still think from here on out All Apple Intel offerings should be Dual Core, at least, (Quad Core anyone?)

BenRoethig

Jan 28, 2006, 11:02 AM

d_and_n5000

Jan 28, 2006, 11:09 AM

OK, where do I get one? I could definetly use the iSight. And the new form factor. And the...

Anyway, i need it all. When again? SPRING?!?!?!? WAY too long!!!!!!!! *huddles in a corner and cries*

Spock

Jan 28, 2006, 11:25 AM

I was playing with Photoshop here is what i want

Plymouthbreezer

Jan 28, 2006, 11:37 AM

Looking forward to seeing the new iBooks, even though I won't be getting one. My TiBook is serving my needs very well so far.

yankeefan24

Jan 28, 2006, 11:39 AM

]
OTOH, the 17" iMac is $1299, and that has a Core Duo and X1600 graphics ... so cut $300 off the price (i.e, about $200 off the BOM) and use laptop components, and you might have the next iBook.

i would buy that day 1. Thats more power than i need. Actually, thats very similar to the MBP. Way to similar. Unfortunatly i dont think thats what is going to happen. This iBook is really going to have to blow me away to get that. Just because merom coming out is going to be cool. We'll see.

mdavey

Jan 28, 2006, 11:41 AM

Apple has reportedly decided to base the new series of iBooks around a single enclosure and display size.

If this is true, it suggests that the laptop lines will be consolidated (kinda). 13" will be iBook or MacBook, 15 "and 17" will be MacBook Pro?

That would also suggest two models, a low-end 13" for $999 and a high-end 13" for $1499. I agree with others that at least the high-end model will get a 1.67GHz Core Duo processor and that the 15" MacBook Pro will be bumped from 1.67 and 1.83GHz to 1.83 and 2GHz.

Does that mean that one could, with some tinkering, enable the other core? Hypothetically, of course...:p

No. The chip is turned into a single-core by blowing an internal fuse-link inside the chip, permanently disconnecting one core from the power supply.

yankeefan24

Jan 28, 2006, 11:41 AM

I was playing with Photoshop here is what i want

i really dont like that camera. Sony's isnt bad. Its not as obvious as the MBP's.
computer:http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=cpu_VAIONotebookComputers_SZWassabi&Dept=computers

image: http://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/imagesProducts/MoreImages/SZ140_3.jpg

EDIT: Now that i look at the MBPs, they aren't that obvious either. But, if apple wants to put an ir sensor in sony might have a better design. I HATE THAT HOLE ON THE MBP. On top of the screen would be preferred by me.

nagromme

Jan 28, 2006, 12:01 PM

Rosetta is far to important at the moment so it has to be a core duo for the iBook.
It doesn't have to. A Core Solo would run circles around a G4 for many of the basic apps people use--including iLife, and including all the other UB apps that are out in the coming months. Plus for many apps (word processing, home finance) just don't demand a lot of horsepower, and those tasks running like a G4 won't bother most low-end buyers during this transition. Rosetta means SOME people should choose to wait a few months. It means a low-end iBook isn't for professionals running Photoshop or LightWave--yet. It doesn't mean Apple can't use Core Solo.

Remember that good reports of Rosetta performance started even on the single-CPU developer kits. Two cores are faster than one, but NOT double the speed.

To the people who think Apple shouldn't use a Core Solo in their bottom-end laptops... do you think NO company should use a Core Solo? Or do you think Apple should leave the low-end laptop market to other companies, and use the highest-end laptop chip on the planet even in their low-end consumer machines?

I really don't see Core Duo ending up in an iBook replacement. (And I expect the Mac Mini will stay single-core as well.)

I disagree. The Celeron is perhaps the worlds lousiest chip.
And the Netburst Pentium line is a runner up.... but Celeron M is NOT related to Celeron any more than Pentium M is related to Pentium 4/Netburst. A Celeron M is a low-end version of a Pentium M (predecessor to Yonah). And if they keep the Celeron name for Yonah-based products, that will be even further removed from the desktop Celeron (Netburst) line. Don't let the name fool you.

guffman

Jan 28, 2006, 12:21 PM

More likely that the MBP will get a processor upgrade at the same time to differentiate it from the iBook (remember, the iMac is still the iMac, not iExpress or Mac Express).

Just to clear things up...The new Apple laptop won't be called an iBook, Apple is putting "Mac" in the names of all their computers. This is why "iMac" didn't change. Jobs says that the company is also trying to get away from the prefix "power" so I'm not sure what they are going to do for the current PowerMac. But expect the new laptop to be simply a MacBook.

milkaxor

Jan 28, 2006, 12:24 PM

i really dont like that camera. Sony's isnt bad. Its not as
EDIT: Now that i look at the MBPs, they aren't that obvious either. But, if apple wants to put an ir sensor in sony might have a better design. I HATE THAT HOLE ON THE MBP. Also, when i use my laptop, most of the time im on my couch with the bottom of the computer (where the ir sensor is) on my stomach. no ir signals getting in there. On top of the screen would be preferred by me.

Why would you be using an ir remote when it is sitting in your lap, touching your hands :confused: The point of it being in the front is for you to set it up next to a tv or a monitor and then go sit on a couch and use the remote from a distance.

Also, I don't know why some keep thinking that the ibook would be better off at 799. These prices haven't happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Apple doesn't get into price wars with PC laptop manufacturers because they don't have/need to. Also, they aren't gonna release some super-low budget laptop with nothing customizable or intergrated graphics.

I belive that iSight and Front Row will be on every mac from now on, which I am happy with. My predictions for the ibook are a core solo, yes it is slower and rosetta and all that jazz but this will be later in the year when a lot of universal binaries have started coming out, an x1300 and whatever AI said. I don't think the low-end ibook will have a superdrive, it will still be an add-on.

I really am anxious to see what they do with the new powermacs and the low and high end macbook pros.

guffman

Jan 28, 2006, 12:25 PM

i really dont like that camera. Sony's isnt bad. Its not as obvious as the MBP's.
computer:http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=cpu_VAIONotebookComputers_SZWassabi&Dept=computers

image: http://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/imagesProducts/MoreImages/SZ140_3.jpg

EDIT: Now that i look at the MBPs, they aren't that obvious either. But, if apple wants to put an ir sensor in sony might have a better design. I HATE THAT HOLE ON THE MBP. Also, when i use my laptop, most of the time im on my couch with the bottom of the computer (where the ir sensor is) on my stomach. no ir signals getting in there. On top of the screen would be preferred by me.

That computer in the first link is FAR worse looking than the MPB. Also, why would you need to use the IR if your computer is right next to you? I think it designed to be used from across the room while hooked up to your TV.

dansgil

Jan 28, 2006, 12:44 PM

I was playing with Photoshop here is what i want

Why the off-center camera?

MacTT

Jan 28, 2006, 12:56 PM

I was playing with Photoshop here is what i want

Awesome, I got a nice visual. :D

billystlyes

Jan 28, 2006, 12:58 PM

Rumor is BS. The Core Solo isn't even coming out until June or so.

MacinDoc

Jan 28, 2006, 01:03 PM

Just to clear things up...The new Apple laptop won't be called an iBook, Apple is putting "Mac" in the names of all their computers. This is why "iMac" didn't change. Jobs says that the company is also trying to get away from the prefix "power" so I'm not sure what they are going to do for the current PowerMac. But expect the new laptop to be simply a MacBook.
However, Apple uses "i" in almost all of its consumer products...

iLife
iPhoto
iDVD
iChat
iDVD
iCal
iTunes
iMac
iPod

See a pattern? The PowerBook name had to go to get rid of "Power", more than to add "Mac", IMO.

So, the way I see it, the names will be:

iMac, Mac Pro
iBook, MacBook Pro

I suppose we could have the iMacBook, but I hope not...

syklee26

Jan 28, 2006, 01:06 PM

noway they put in core duo in there. since most of the power users (who use powerbooks) have bigger monitors to link it up, if Apple release macbook with 1.67 core duo, nobody will buy MBP.

I am expecting something like a Pentium M 1.2 which is in the Sony TX series. that way Apple can cut the cost, cut the weight, and still look cool.

MacinDoc

Jan 28, 2006, 01:10 PM

- I am hearing the Core Solo actually costs Apple close to the same as the Core Duo (maybe 50-100 bucks more).
To be precise, the price difference is $32, in lots of 1000 processors, and the difference for Apple is likely less.
I still think from here on out All Apple Intel offerings should be Dual Core, at least, (Quad Core anyone?)
Apple, which loves to advertise things like "world's first desktop supercomputer", "world's first 64-bit personal computer", and "worlds's fastest computer", would love to be the "only personal computer maker with all multicore CPUs".

Skylee26 may also be right, it may not be a Core chip at all, but an older one instead, such as Pentium M or Celeron M, but the Core Solo seems to be a poor choice for the money.

Elrond39

Jan 28, 2006, 01:26 PM

Spock

Jan 28, 2006, 01:36 PM

Why the off-center camera?

The camera is to large to fit under the latch on the current iBook I didnt want to offset the latch and I only wanted one latch. I also figured the iSight used a wide camera angle and with that small of an offset who would notice?

matthewHUB

Jan 28, 2006, 01:39 PM

All i care about is will it have a good enough graphics card to support multiple video conferencing in iChat?!!!! I currently have a powerbook, and 3 other ibooks in my family, all with isights. It's so annoying that we can't all talk with eachother. I don't care about 4-way but at least 3-way would be nice.

M

mrgreen4242

Jan 28, 2006, 01:43 PM

Rumor is BS. The Core Solo isn't even coming out until June or so.

Uh. Intel is listing them for sale... http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

Sony says they can get me a Core Solo equipped notebook in 3 to 5 days... http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=cpu_VAIONotebookComputers_SZSeries&Dept=computers

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they are shipping them now.

Natron

Jan 28, 2006, 01:50 PM

Powerbook 17" => MacBook Extreme
Powerbook 15" => MacBook Pro
Powerbook 12" => MacBook Express (13")
iBook 12" & 14" => iBook (13")

I like that naming convention.

If you think about it, doesn't iBook sound just as dumb? I love mine, but the whole "i" thing is old, and doesn't make much sense... the whole "WOW" factor of the "i"nternet has worn off. MacBook makes much more since... and I feel the same way about PowerBook, as both units use a "Power" PC processor...

I've always considered "i" to mean integrated. It makes more sense than "i"nternet.

So, the way I see it, the names will be:

iMac, Mac Pro
iBook, MacBook Pro

I suppose we could have the iMacBook, but I hope not...

But iBook is the only one of those without Mac in the name. When I first heard the MacBook name, I honestly didn't like it, but I understood why it is called that. Now, a few weeks later, I am liking it just fine. I would rather see iBook than MacBook, but I won't be surprised at all by it.

And all you people who absolutely hate the name MacBook, or say you will never buy a MacBook, I guess you better plan to never buy an Apple laptop again.

mjstew33

Jan 28, 2006, 01:55 PM

I was playing with Photoshop here is what i want
Oh wow, that would be awesome.

I'll probably sell mine to get one. :o

ChoMomma

Jan 28, 2006, 01:57 PM

Just use Handbrake (http://handbrake.m0k.org/) to convert it to an .mp4 file. The file will be smaller and still look great, you just won't be able to skip to chapter markers. You can put that file in your "Movies" folder and play it through FrontRow.

Exactly!! I've been doing that on the new iMac G5 (w/isight) that Santa brought my wife and I for xmas. It comes with a 200+ GB Harddrive.. so why not!

Meemoo

Jan 28, 2006, 02:01 PM

What is to keep Apple from using the L2300 (2M L2 cache 1.50 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm)? I know that it's only a 167MHz difference from the bottom of the line MBP, but in a 13" Laptop you have a lot that can justify the price difference between a $2,000 MBP and a $1299 iBook(assuming that will be the new price point, even though there were previous rumors of Apple introducing a $799 laptop).

Okay so right there you have a $700 price difference between the two. Buy spending the extra $700 you'll get a better GPU(I'm hoping Apple uses a lower end ATI chip with 64MB of VRAM, I forsee the MBP getting a 256 option in it's next update), extra screen real estate the "Mag Safe Connector", the illuminated keyboard, Gigabit Ethernet, Dual Link DVI(the iBook will use standard DVI), and lastly the ability to have 2GB of Ram versus 1.5GB.
Those luxary features will be enough to justify the extra $700 bones for professionals.

However I think the MBP is a bit of a rip off. It should feature 1GB of RAM and a 7200 RPM drive standard for it's price point, and I think these are features you will see in Rev B.

The iBooks and Powerbooks have never been more than a few hundered MHz apart either way(Look at todays 14" iBook and the 15" Powerbook, the powerbook is only 20% faster).

I think Apple does have themselves in a bit of a jam, they need the core duo but that would result in an imbalance between MPB and iBook sales. Unfortunately I have a gut feeling we may see way overdue updated G4 iBooks.

Spock

Jan 28, 2006, 02:08 PM

You know, this isn't even that far-fetched an idea... lucky me for already having the remote (IR Universal dock for my iPod).

Its too bad it wasnt his idea. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=174918&page=2

iSight and IR but sell the remote seperate to keep costs down.

And the Apple Remote is only $27 at Wal-Mart

rhsgolfer33

Jan 28, 2006, 02:16 PM

What is to keep Apple from using the L2300 (2M L2 cache 1.50 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm)? I know that it's only a 167MHz difference from the bottom of the line MBP, but in a 13" Laptop you have a lot that can justify the price difference between a $2,000 MBP and a $1299 iBook(assuming that will be the new price point, even though there were previous rumors of Apple introducing a $799 laptop).

Thats what I was thinking, or they could up the MacBook Pros to 1.83 and 2.0 and then put the Low voltage CoreDuo 1.67 in the iBook(MacBook, whatever). The price points on the processors may have gone down a little bit especially if there is any speedbumps from intel. There has never really been that much of a speed difference(processor wise) between the iBook 14" and the Powerbooks. Right now the fastest iBook is at 1.42ghz and the Powerbook is at 1.67ghz, only a 250mhz difference. Powerbook has always been single core and so has the iBook, so I doubt if theyll try to differentiate the lines that way. Theyll prolly use a small difference in processor speed and other added "pro" features to differentiate as they have in the past.

Meemoo

Jan 28, 2006, 02:20 PM

they could up the MacBook Pros to 1.83 and 2.0 and then put the Low voltage CoreDuo 1.67 in the iBook(MacBook, whatever).

At the same time, speed bumps like this seem untraditional for Apple. Apple usually updates their products what like every 200 days? A 30 days later "hey now we bumped a little bit" is unheard of for apple.

Then again, the Apple intel deal is going to introduce a whole new era for Apple.

d.f

Jan 28, 2006, 02:22 PM

The new iBook (MacBook) will almost certainly have a Core Solo processor, otherwise it will cannibalize MacBook Pro sales. Furthermore, the recent article which I believe was in Forbes about how much Apple is paying for the Core Duo implies that it is a very expensive chip (Probably more than twice as much as the G4 in the iBook), and putting it in an iBook would cut profit margins dramatically.

isn't the Core Solo chip just a fraction cheaper. i do agree that it will get the Solo chip, but using the cost as an excuse isn't right. i'll do a search, but there have been threads with the actual costs of each Yonah chip (before Apple discount) and it was something like:

Core Duo = $260

Core Solo = £230

i think the reason is the chips have to be manufactured exactly the same and near the 'end stage' one of the cores are disabled. it's clearly not that simple, but the chips are exactly the same so the costs aren't any cheaper.

Laser47

Jan 28, 2006, 02:23 PM

You know, as I think about it more. I think they might keep the name of the ibook, or call it a iMacbook.
That way they it will be easier for the 'Halo Effect' to work. People think wow this 'i'Pod is easy to use maybe we should get a i'Book or 'Macbook. And I dont think the 'i' stands for internet anymore because the ipod certainly does not have a lot to do with the internet

ebow

Jan 28, 2006, 02:26 PM

I'm anticipating a notebook lineup that mimics the desktop lineup by having three tiers of product. The iMac was the original "i" product and has been Apple's best selling computer (series) ever (as far as I recall) so that name is safe. From the precedent of MacBook Pro we can expect the PowerMac to become the Mac Pro or something similar. So... why not look to the Mac mini for the new low end notebook: the MacBook mini. Neither "mini" product would have an integrated camera, and both would be as compact as possible. The MacBook mini could resemble some of the low-end iBooks that others in this thread have been speculating about, with a 12" screen and cost about $899. The MacBook as speculated by AppleInsider would fit nicely in the middle at $1099 and $1299, and the MacBook pro would be the already-announced 15" and a matching 17".

And good grief--if they put anything less than a "pretty good" graphics card with 64MB dedicated video RAM in the MacBook, they're idiots. I could see the MacBook mini using Intel integrated graphics though I really hope they could still have dedicated video RAM (I'm not clear on all the implications of integrated video).

edit: okay, so reviewing this I see my points aren't very convincing. Still, I see Apple making a MacBook mini of some sort.

MacQuest

Jan 28, 2006, 02:29 PM

Hopefully, Apple will...have a... MacBook Pro 12 inch.

How can anyone doubt this? I'm not putting you on blast in anyway kcmac, I'm just pointing out that with the 15" MacBook Pro price points being $1999 and $2499, and with the replacement 13" widescreen iBooks [MacBooks?] supposedly being priced at $999 with a SuperDrive and possibly $799[?] without a SuperDrive, there is a $1000 price gap between the high end MacBook and the low end MacBook Pro.

There HAS to be a $1500[ish] 13" widescreen MBP at the same price point as the former 12" Powerbook to bridge that gap.

Also, it's worth noting that the high end 15" MBP is now priced at $2499, the same price as the former 17" PB G4...

Anyone else think that there may be enough room in the 17" MBP to put 2 Intel Dual's inside and make it the first QuadCore notebook? I see it at $2,999 - $3,299.

How about a sub-compact 11" widescreen iBook like the TONY's [Tiny Sony's] out there? Maybe there will be 2 widescreen MacBooks, 11" @ $699-$799 and 13" @ $999.

Natron

Jan 28, 2006, 02:40 PM

Liquidog

Jan 28, 2006, 02:52 PM

Also, I don't know why some keep thinking that the ibook would be better off at 799. These prices haven't happened in the past and won't happen in the future. Apple doesn't get into price wars with PC laptop manufacturers because they don't have/need to. Also, they aren't gonna release some super-low budget laptop with nothing customizable or intergrated graphics.

People are thinking the ibook would be better off at 799 because some people are convinced that with Apple using Intel cpus, all of a sudden Apple will be forced to compete directly with other computer manufacturers, spec for spec. The logic is that since the G4 was not directly comparable in terms of clock speed to the x86 side of things, Apple could get away with not having the most cutting edge hardware and still charging a pretty penny for their machines. Well I hate to say it, but just because Apple is using Intel doesn't mean they're going to try to compete on price with every laptop that uses the same cpu. Apple isn't worried about people putting a macbook pro next to a Sony whatever and then choosing the sony because it's using a cpu that's ___mhz faster. Apple knows that the design and the OS are STILL what's going to get people to switch, and with the money that they spend on R & D and design, they can continue to expect to have the edge there. The fact that they are now using Intel cpus doesn't mean that they have to get into price wars with other computer companies. It means that the argument of "mac laptops aren't as fast" is pretty much dead and gone, so that people can focus on what really matters: design and OS. That's Apple's strength and that's what they want everyone to focus on. The speed and power are there because people expect that too, as well they should.

Natron

Jan 28, 2006, 02:55 PM

People are thinking the ibook would be better off at 799 because some people are convinced that with Apple using Intel cpus, all of a sudden Apple will be forced to compete directly with other computer manufacturers, spec for spec.

That's not it at all.

sikkinixx

Jan 28, 2006, 03:15 PM

KindredMAC

Jan 28, 2006, 03:35 PM

• Processors: IF Apple uses the Core Solo Intels, that Rosetta would be such a dog that it would put it in the same catagory of performance as my current 900MHz G3 iBook that is 3 years old.

• Prices: Should Apple only make a 13" Widescreen iBook, I hope that they take the opportunity to lower the prices even by as little as $100. An $899 iBook, in my opinion, would be all Apple needs to help make it a power house in the laptop market and scoop up even more percentage points. If they have only one model and offer it at anything over $1099, they are just screaming for failure to occur.

• Name: Do not call it a MacBook........... yet. Save the name change for a brand new design. People are used to the white looks of Apple having the "i" in front of their products names. The iMac did not become the MacHome or the MacMoneyMaker, it stayed the iMac. Granted the Mac mini could become the MacHome, but that's another thread. The average PC person out there knows what the "iBook" is. Use that to your advantage Apple.

• Hardware Specs: AT LEAST a 64MB Video Card, 128 preferred though. SuperDrives in ALL models. 2GB of Ram capabilities but staying 1.5 would still be acceptable. The rumored Built-in iSight is a must. I know people have been down on it, but how else do you make iChat the sought after application that it really is? Well, you include the camera that shows off iChats strengths! I bought the iSight when it first came out and actually had to replace the screen on my iBook. All because I happened to knock the screen with the iSight's mount and had a couple dead pixels as the result of the clumsy tap.

guffman

Jan 28, 2006, 03:41 PM

this is all well and good but if they use an 13" ibook as their ultraportable and ditch the pro series 12" I will be totally choked. Apple is already tearing me by using Intel (although I realize this makes for a better product for the enduser but still.....intel......ugh...) and if they get rid of the mini pb size I seriously question if I will continue to buy Apple laptops...

I don't understand why the name "Intel" is such a big deal. Just because it's an Intel brand, that makes it "ugh"? So what if intel sold their chips to PC companies. That doesn't have anything to do with Windows, which is the real problem with PCs.

As far as a 12" MacBook? I'm not sure but I doubt it. The 15" model is for pro users looking to do high end stuff, and I just don't think having all that in a 12" model is really nessasary. I think that most people interested in a 12" will be more than fine with Apple's new iBook model.

guffman

Jan 28, 2006, 03:44 PM

• Name: Do not call it a MacBook........... yet. Save the name change for a brand new design. People are used to the white looks of Apple having the "i" in front of their products names. The iMac did not become the MacHome or the MacMoneyMaker, it stayed the iMac. Granted the Mac mini could become the MacHome, but that's another thread. The average PC person out there knows what the "iBook" is. Use that to your advantage Apple.

Again, "iMac" didn't change because it already has "Mac" in it's title. It's not the "i" that Apple is worried about, its the lack of the word "Mac". They will also steer clear of "power". I think that Job's comments during his Keynote pretty much cleared this up.

rhsgolfer33

Jan 28, 2006, 03:46 PM

this is all well and good but if they use an 13" ibook as their ultraportable and ditch the pro series 12" I will be totally choked. Apple is already tearing me by using Intel (although I realize this makes for a better product for the enduser but still.....intel......ugh...) and if they get rid of the mini pb size I seriously question if I will continue to buy Apple laptops...

What other laptop are you going to buy? Most everything else has Intel in it anyways. Either way youll be getting an Intel box, one will just have OS X on it. AMDs laptop chips arent that great and are only in a few computers right now, and their Athlon 64 is the route to 2 hour battery life, so your pretty much stuck with an intel laptop chip.

amateurmacfreak

Jan 28, 2006, 03:54 PM

Hopefully it wont have a dual core processor, only 64mb vram, w/ 512 ram, 13.3 widescreen, superdrive allowing it to be still a fantastic machine but a clear cut down from the macbook pro. I will be surprised if it isnt, however expect the possibility of a pro version aswell in silver with the specs youl hoping for. That will be a very nice book.
Yeah, but what I think may happen.... the Intel iBooks get nice with a really good processor (dare I say, Core Duo?) and then they will be close to the MacBook Pro, but then it will get the newest Intel laptop processor a few months after. Now, I don't keep up too well with Intel, so when is the next good Intel laptop processor coming out??
Oh, also I think a lower than iBook line is a definite possibility.

amateurmacfreak

Jan 28, 2006, 03:58 PM

If this is true, it suggests that the laptop lines will be consolidated (kinda). 13" will be iBook or MacBook, 15 "and 17" will be MacBook Pro?

That would also suggest two models, a low-end 13" for $999 and a high-end 13" for $1499. I agree with others that at least the high-end model will get a 1.67GHz Core Duo processor and that the 15" MacBook Pro will be bumped from 1.67 and 1.83GHz to 1.83 and 2GHz.

I really don't want the little 12" laptops to be eliminated. :( I think they're the cutest size, and they're the ones I love going around town w/. For more work-oriented stuff that I need a stronger comp and a bigger screen for I'd use a larger laptop. Only then.

amateurmacfreak

Jan 28, 2006, 04:04 PM

And the Apple Remote is only $27 at Wal-Mart
WALMART?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? :eek: YOU WOULD SHOP FOR PURE LITTLE APPLE PRODUCTS AT WAL-MART? ;)
No, but seriously, Wal-Mart's an absolutely horrible corporation.
Look it up on-line.

steve_hill4

Jan 28, 2006, 04:10 PM

How can anyone doubt this? I'm not putting you on blast in anyway kcmac, I'm just pointing out that with the 15" MacBook Pro price points being $1999 and $2499, and with the replacement 13" widescreen iBooks [MacBooks?] supposedly being priced at $999 with a SuperDrive and possibly $799[?] without a SuperDrive, there is a $1000 price gap between the high end MacBook and the low end MacBook Pro.

There HAS to be a $1500[ish] 13" widescreen MBP at the same price point as the former 12" Powerbook to bridge that gap.

Also, it's worth noting that the high end 15" MBP is now priced at $2499, the same price as the former 17" PB G4...

Anyone else think that there may be enough room in the 17" MBP to put 2 Intel Dual's inside and make it the first QuadCore notebook? I see it at $2,999 - $3,299.

How about a sub-compact 11" widescreen iBook like the TONY's [Tiny Sony's] out there? Maybe there will be 2 widescreen MacBooks, 11" @ $699-$799 and 13" @ $999.
While most of this is accurate enough to get me to agree with you, I think I will point out where I think reality is more likely to differ.

1. I can see the 17" coming in two specs as with the 15" model. One which isn't too far off the current 17" PowerBook, the other being a much higher spec, (possibly 512MB graphics, two SATA drives if there's enough room).

2. The iBooks will go to 13" WS, as will the smaller MBP. However I see there also being another size, (possibly 15" to capture more of the consumer market after a larger screen, but nominal performance), and all MacBook being shipped with Superdrives, (except the higher 17" which may even dare to go Bluperdrive)

3. IF Apple decide to go to a sub notebook, it will more likely be a smaller MBP or even a seperate series name. Most after these are willing to pay a premium for a high-ish performing system in a small frame. Stick similar specs in one of these to the 13" MBP, but keep the processor to the lowest voltage, (i.e wait for Core Duo ULV), to maximise battery life, shrink down the HDD form facter used, decrease expandability options, choose a small, but efficient graphics card and put all this in something with a 10.1" screen. If Sony can do this reasonably well, so can Apple with their ex-Sony engineers on board. They might even choose to resurrect the Duo style with minimal hardware inside, but dock it and let it become a full featured notebook again.

beatle888

Jan 28, 2006, 04:24 PM

Why would you be using an ir remote when it is sitting in your lap, touching your hands :confused::p :p :p i know! i was like...uh....wait.....huh?:D

I belive that iSight and Front Row will be on every mac from now on

and again....uh wait...huh? you seemed to have joined ranks with the person stating that he wants to use the remote while the laptop is sitting on his belly. do you really think that the iSight will be built in to every mac? including the desktop units? if so and apple agrees with you, than a lot of ball sacks are going to be the main focus of all video conferences, meaning that a lot of desktop users have their macs below their desks.

still that guy stating that he wanted to use the remote while the laptop was on his belly was hilarious. im lazy but not THAT lazy :D

MacQuest

Jan 28, 2006, 04:27 PM

Again, "iMac" didn't change because it already has "Mac" in it's title. It's not the "i" that Apple is worried about, its the lack of the word "Mac". They will also steer clear of "power". I think that Job's comments during his Keynote pretty much cleared this up.

THANK YOU!!!

I was about to have an aneurism posting this same response to "KindredMAC". iBook is meaningless compared to MacBook, and Power has NO more relevance over Pro without PowerPC being used. As for the part he posted about "people knowing what an iBook is and using that as their advantage"... WRONG!

It's time to start focusing on the OS as a major differentiating factor, THAT is the advantage.

Is it so hard to comprehend that a Macintosh Notebook would be best called a MacBook, and that the Professional level Macintosh Notebook would be called the MacBook Pro?!

Remember the business marketing philosophy of "K.I.S.S." = Keep It Simple Stupid.

Cinch

Jan 28, 2006, 04:54 PM

THANK YOU!!!

I was about to have an aneurism posting this same response to "guffman". iBook is meaningless compared to MacBook, and Power has NO more relevance over Pro without PowerPC being used. As for the part he posted about "people knowing what an iBook is and using that as their advantage"... WRONG!

It's time to start focusing on the OS as a major differentiating factor, THAT is the advantage.

Is it so hard to comprehend that a Macintosh Notebook would be best called a MacBook, and that the Professional level Macintosh Notebook would be called the MacBook Pro?!

Remember the business marketing philosophy of "K.I.S.S." = Keep It Simple Stupid.

It could be worst. HP desktop line name is torturous e.g. d4100y series

Cinch

Stella

Jan 28, 2006, 05:12 PM

I think its a dead certainty that iBook will be renamed MacBook...

What ever the processor used it'll be a lot faster than the G4.

I hope that:

- it remains cheap ( i doubt very much it'll go under $1K Canadian.. those Duo chips aren't cheap in any configuration ( single or dual ).

- Good graphics card

- Dual screen spanning.

- Not girlie white!

asherman13

Jan 28, 2006, 05:24 PM

I have been thinking about a 3 tiered approach in laptops, as well as desktop. One of the problems with the mac mini is you still need a display, keyboard, and mouse. While this allows for greater customization, the mac mini it is definitely targeted at people who already have a display. I think there are still a lot of people getting their first computer, especially children that are about to get their own computer, and a low-end iBook (around $700) would be perfect. It would definitely solve the "need a display" problem.

Perhaps a TabletPC-like computer? Bluetooth and perhaps an integrated stand (both for desktop-ing and watching DVD's on the go) would give you the possibility to have a mix of an eMate, Newton, MacMini, and iBook.

At the MWSF keynote, SJ did mention that the next iPod screen's going to be 8"...perhaps he was talking about something other than an iPod?:p

MacQuest

Jan 28, 2006, 05:29 PM

It could be worst. HP desktop line name is torturous e.g. d4100y series

Cinch

Exactly! The other guys don't get it. It has often been speculated that the reason that Sony's attempts to knock Apple's iPod off it's pedestal failed in large part because it's mp3 players names were something like: NW-E407.

Dumba$$'s don't understand that by keeping it simple, it makes it personal for the consumer as well. They're naming products in a way for them to keep track of inventory, but who cares if that inventory isn't selling because something as simple as the name sucks?!

MacQuest

Jan 28, 2006, 05:37 PM

...do you really think that the iSight will be built in to every mac? including the desktop units? if so... then a lot of ball sacks are going to be the main focus of all video conferences...

I know that my sack, aka "coin purse" [ -Stewie Griffin from Family Guy] does most of my better thinking, therefore it deserves to be the ... ahem... focus [pun fully intended]... of my video conferences.

still that guy stating that he wanted to use the remote while the laptop was on his belly was hilarious. im lazy but not THAT lazy :D

I want a remote for my remote to control the laptop on my belly... and I'm tired of getting up to go to the bathroom.

Get to work on the iPee and iPoo, Apple!!!

Or MacPee/MacPoo.

yankeefan24

Jan 28, 2006, 05:42 PM

That computer in the first link is FAR worse looking than the MPB. Also, why would you need to use the IR if your computer is right next to you? I think it designed to be used from across the room while hooked up to your TV.

I don't know about front row, but can you use the arrow keys. Also, more things can block the IR reciever when its on the bottom vs. when its on the top of the screen. If something is blocking the top of the screen, then u can't see the screen. I know nothing about front row, but if you can use the arrow keys that great. I just feel that having the IR sensor on the top is better.

MacQuest

Jan 28, 2006, 05:43 PM

those Duo chips aren't cheap in any configuration ( single or dual ).

Duo chips come in a single configuration?! Now that's just silly... :rolleyes: :D ;)

I'm sure you meant those Core chips...

ChoMomma

Jan 28, 2006, 05:48 PM

I don't know about front row, but can you use the arrow keys. Also, more things can block the IR reciever when its on the bottom vs. when its on the top of the screen. If something is blocking the top of the screen, then u can't see the screen. I know nothing about front row, but if you can use the arrow keys that great. I just feel that having the IR sensor on the top is better.

Hmm I was really hoping that they wouldn't use IR for the remote.. but bluetooth instead. Just so line of sight wouldn't be an issue and the range would be better. But for now the one on the iMac seems to work well. I wonder if I can use the IR from my cell phone to sync with my iMac .. hmmmmmmmmmm...

mrgreen4242

Jan 28, 2006, 06:19 PM

For all the people griping about a Core Solo ibook being a dog with Rosetta... I don't think Apple is going to go after people who need to run high requirement legacy applications, like PhotoShop for example, with this sort of computer.

It'll be aimed squarely at consumers for whom Safari, Mail, and iLife cover 80% of their needs. The sort of person for whom PS Elements is abotu as high end as it gets. Plus, by the time these are released a lot of the smaller products, and more of the larger ones will be Universal.

My guess is that the iBook line (12 and 14") will be replaced by a single 13.3" widescreen model (as in the rumor), and there will be a 12" MBP launched about the same time (within a month).

I'm gonna guess specs/Prices something like...

iBook 13"
1.67ghz Solo
512mb STD/1.5gb MAX
60gb 5400rpm STD/100 OPT
x700-esque GPU 64mb VRAM (maybe 128 as an option or if we are lucky std)
Combo STD/SD OPT
iSight, Front Row ready (remote for extra $)
$899 for base model (512/60/Combo/64mb VRAM)
$1099 for higher end (768mb/80/SD/128 VRAM)

MacBook Pro 12"
1.67hz Duo
512mb std/2gb max
80gb std/120gb opt
x1300-esqu GPU
64/128mb VRAM (depending on model)
iSight, Front Row w/ remote
SD standard

$1399 for 512/80/Combo/64mb VRAM
$1599 for 1gb/100/SD/128 VRAM

iEric

Jan 28, 2006, 06:21 PM

I WANT A NEW iBOOK DESIGN.

AMEN to that!

AidenShaw

Jan 28, 2006, 06:43 PM

Actually intel doesn't really make core solos. The available core solo is a duo where one of the chips is disabled afterwards. So productions costs are the same.
Not quite true in the sense that you imply.

True that the Solo started out with the potential to be a Duo....

It's better to characterize the Solo, however, as a Duo that only had one correctly functioning CPU, or maybe too many defects in cache.

Intel can, after the fact like you say, disable the defective CPU and/or defective cache - and sell the chip as a solo. (They don't need too many part numbers, so a chip with two good CPUs and defective cache would be downgraded to a Solo, not sold as a Duo with half cache.)

So, instead of throwing the chip with defects in the trash, they can sell it to Apple for the iBook.

The same thing is done with Celerons (and Celeron Ms) - a Pentium 4 chip (or Pentium M) with defects in cache, or one that won't run quite as fast, has half the cache disabled and is sold as a Celeron (or Celeron M).

It's a great way for Intel to increase the effective chip yield.

Elrond39

Jan 28, 2006, 07:25 PM

Its too bad it wasnt his idea.

It's true, many times things are not original...

Mal

Jan 28, 2006, 07:42 PM

I'm gonna guess specs/Prices something like...

iBook 13"
1.67ghz Solo
512mb STD/1.5gb MAX
60gb 5400rpm STD/100 OPT
x700-esque GPU 64mb VRAM (maybe 128 as an option or if we are lucky std)
Combo STD/SD OPT
iSight, Front Row ready (remote for extra $)
$899 for base model (512/60/Combo/64mb VRAM)
$1099 for higher end (768mb/80/SD/128 VRAM)

MacBook Pro 12"
1.67hz Duo
512mb std/2gb max
80gb std/120gb opt
x1300-esqu GPU
64/128mb VRAM (depending on model)
iSight, Front Row w/ remote
SD standard

$1399 for 512/80/Combo/64mb VRAM
$1599 for 1gb/100/SD/128 VRAM

Now that's an idea that's both reasonable and enticing. I would buy that $899 laptop ($799 edu?) in a heartbeat, and I'm sure just as many people would jump at $1399 or $1599 for a MacBook Pro 13" like the one you described. I think Apple may surprise us though, with something we never expected, though not anything that'll make people looking at a MacBook Pro turn their heads and think twice.

jW

milkaxor

Jan 28, 2006, 08:28 PM

:p :p :p i know! i was like...uh....wait.....huh?:D
and again....uh wait...huh? you seemed to have joined ranks with the person stating that he wants to use the remote while the laptop is sitting on his belly. do you really think that the iSight will be built in to every mac? including the desktop units? if so and apple agrees with you, than a lot of ball sacks are going to be the main focus of all video conferences, meaning that a lot of desktop users have their macs below their desks.

Uhh, what? iSight is built into the top of the lid on the MBP, so it will be looking directly at your face, since it is above the screen. Same goes for the iMac. I don't see it as too much of a far fetched idea for apple to build iSight into their next revision of monitors. So that powermacs and minis will be able to take advantage of them. I am curious to know where you think they would have put the cameras.

I'm gonna guess specs/Prices something like...

iBook 13"
1.67ghz Solo
512mb STD/1.5gb MAX
60gb 5400rpm STD/100 OPT
x700-esque GPU 64mb VRAM (maybe 128 as an option or if we are lucky std)
Combo STD/SD OPT
iSight, Front Row ready (remote for extra $)
$899 for base model (512/60/Combo/64mb VRAM)
$1099 for higher end (768mb/80/SD/128 VRAM)

1.33GHz PowerPC G4
512K L2 cache @1.33GHz
512MB memory (DDR333 SDRAM)
12.1-inch TFT Display
1024x768 resolution
ATI Mobility Radeon 9550
32MB DDR video memory
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor
$999

Above are your proposed specs and the current iBook specs. Why would they offer you considerably more computer for less money. The logic just doesnt' make any sense to me. Apple isn't saving oodles of money by switching. Also, the initial investment costs a lot more. Why would they suddenly start dropping prices when they have held, and sold well, at their current spots for over a year now.

Norse Son

Jan 28, 2006, 08:34 PM

If this was a rumor from one of Think Secret's daydreaming, I'd be much, much, MUCH more skeptical... They've really bloodied their nose in the past year.

I still hope there is room for a 13" MacBook Pro at $1499..the MacBook should retain its $999/1299 price tag. Main drawbacks to this will be:

Intel Core SOLO processors
X1300 Chipset w/ 64Mb VRAM
Possibly retain CDRW/DVD Combi on the cheaper model
FrontRow ONLY with no iSight on any of the models
No Modem built-in, and despite rumours I'm still betting bye bye to firewire..

Advantages will be:

Old PowerBook quality displays (finally)
Retain Airport and Bluetooth
Better form-factor and newer software (iLife 06..dunno if its currently bundled with the iBooks)
Same Prices

The MacBook Pro 13" should come with a Duo Processor and iSight and 128Megs of VRAM (X1600 I think is too farfetched for a $1499 computer with a Core Duo and iSight built in)

Remeber folks, lets not dream..this is Apple they always seem to 'think different'...even to the consumer :rolleyes:
Well, I believe it will get the 1.6GHz Core Solo - that chip was on Intel's newest pricelist (post-CES & pre-MWSF). However, if the iBook-Intel won't appear 'til around March-April, I'd think that by then Intel will have the 1.83GHz Core Solo, as well. So we could see two differently-specced iBooks (I still have a gag reflex on "MacBook Pro").

So, if Apple wishes to make a bold statement with the Intel-powered iBook, it will likely be as follows (approx.):
• $999(US) MacBook/iBook/iMacBook 1.6GHz Core Solo: 13"WS, Intel Integrated Graphics (64MB shared), 512MB DDR2, 60GB ATA-133 hard drive, Combo Drive, Centrino 802.11g, Bluetooth, 2 @ USB 2, 1 @ FrWr400, iSight, FrontRow, PhotoBooth, iLife '06...
• $1,299(US) MacBook/iBook/iMacBook 1.83GHz Core Solo: 13"WS, Intel Integrated Graphics (128MB shared), 512MB DDR2, 80GB ATA-133 hard drive, SuperDrive, Centrino 802.11g, Bluetooth, 2 @ USB 2, 1 @ FrWr400, iSight, FrontRow, PhotoBooth, iLife '06...

I mean, face it, it doesn't matter if there's a "mere" $20 difference between the 1.6GHz Core Solo & Core Duo... Consumer notebooks have no realistic and/or practical need (at this time - by or at next MWSF) for a dual-core cpu. The Core Solo reads like it's twice the chip the ancient G4 is. Also, a Core Solo would have better energy useage than the Core Duo, which means Apple could use less-heavier-duty batteries, further slimming the cost. S-ATA is on the Napa chipset, but (yet again) the iBook's target market does not truly need that extra "oomph". And with regards to the Intel Integrated Graphics, it sounds like they are quite good - perhaps on par with the "legacy" gpu in the present iBook, maybe even better, definitely cheaper to incorporate.

Bottomline: Apple will try to wow us with the new iBook/whatever. Performance is only part of the equation. They may want to shave a hundred bucks off the price of each configuration - let's face it; $999 is a grand, no matter how you try to whitewash it... And if any of you dreamers out there think that Apple can afford to put a dual-core Yonah & ATI Radeon X1600 128MB in a $999 notebook - look how much the PC crowd is charging for their Core Duos... If you need all those bells & whistles, time to lift the couch cushions for spare change to buy a MacBook Pro.

And in regards to a Core Duo MacBook Pro 13" - I agree. For many people a sub-note or ultra-portable suffices. And there needs to be a pro model smaller than the 15"... I'm just not wild about one myself - I can only afford one Mac every 3-4 years.

TheMasin9

Jan 28, 2006, 08:39 PM

mrgreen4242

Jan 28, 2006, 08:57 PM

Uhh, what? iSight is built into the top of the lid on the MBP, so it will be looking directly at your face, since it is above the screen. Same goes for the iMac. I don't see it as too much of a far fetched idea for apple to build iSight into their next revision of monitors. So that powermacs and minis will be able to take advantage of them. I am curious to know where you think they would have put the cameras.

1.33GHz PowerPC G4
512K L2 cache @1.33GHz
512MB memory (DDR333 SDRAM)
12.1-inch TFT Display
1024x768 resolution
ATI Mobility Radeon 9550
32MB DDR video memory
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor
$999

Above are your proposed specs and the current iBook specs. Why would they offer you considerably more computer for less money. The logic just doesnt' make any sense to me. Apple isn't saving oodles of money by switching. Also, the initial investment costs a lot more. Why would they suddenly start dropping prices when they have held, and sold well, at their current spots for over a year now.

Uh, cuz that's how the computer industry works? You get more for less money every time there is a system update.

$2299 - 933Mhz G4, 60GB, SuperDrive, GeForce4 MX, 256MB

$1999 - Dual core G5 @ 2ghz, 512MB, 160GB, SuperDrive (double-layer), NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB

Why would Apple sell this G5 for LESS than the significantly slower G4? :rolleyes:

Norse Son

Jan 28, 2006, 09:05 PM

It seems like every other person posting here has some kind of psychological problem with the new laptop names. Why?

Is it mysticism over previous names? Because names change with product changes. Doi. And "Power" is kind of retarded if it doesn't run on a PowerPC chip.

... Jobs said he wanted "Mac" in the name... it IS the biggest part of what sets them apart, ain't it?

I just don't get it. Macbook seems like a good name to me - Macintosh + Notebook = MacBook... There is already a bias against Mac users in that some people consider them to be marked by irrational behaviour and thinking...let's not further it along by having emotional attachments to product names...
The very first "true" Mac laptop - not that luggable crate the Mac Portable - was the PowerBook 100, designed for Apple by Sony. It was powered by a Motorola 68030. The later PowerBook 540 had a 68040. Neither of those chips was a PowerPC. So you see, the name PowerBook predates PPC. That's why so many Mac fans are attached to the name.

Yes, I figured there'd be some kind of name-tweaking with the change to Intel, but I felt PowerBook was a "known entity"... And MacBook Pro still doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily (or as sexily & authoritatively) as PowerBook.

As for Mac users being marked as displaying irrational behavior and thinking... Well, I'd say the same about 90% of the world that invests - no, "dumps" so much time, effort, money, anxiety & stress into a rickety, viral, bug-ridden and swiss-cheesed-security mess that is Windows... But, hey, they do, and in droves. So if you can give all us irrational Mac users a rational - I mean it, I want rational! - explanation for that, then I'll start a mantra of "Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro, Mac-Book-Pro,..."

mrgreen4242

Jan 28, 2006, 09:07 PM

im glad they are finally consoidating the line. i think having two separate models with virtually the same system (sans superdrive) was stupid. having a 14 inch model with the same resolution as the 12 was just dumb, the only difference was the optical and hd. glad to hear the 13.3 is going to be widescreen. it had better have a 64 vid card at least.

Ya, the only thing that ever turned me off the 12" iBook was the no SD option. I think it was just a ploy to get people to buy 12" PowerBooks; something Apple is famous for that I hope stops (or at least decreases) with the Intel transition, with a greater variety of CPUs and other hardware available to them.

Something I was just thinking about was how everyone seems to be sure that they will be using a Yonah chip in a 13" iBook. The Pentium M is a great CPU still, with life left in it. The price for a decent Pentium M seems about the same as a Core Solo, so I can't see any reason they would use anything but that... unless they use a Pentium M Celeron...

This was mentioned earlier, and while it would probably keep me from buying one (I'll likely wait till the second generation anyway), it wouldn't be all that bad. A 1.6ghz Pentium M Celeron is about 25% less than a Core Duo, and may make it possible to get a decent GPU (with healthy VRAM levels) into a significantly-sub-$1000 laptop...

Norse Son

Jan 28, 2006, 09:45 PM

Thats what I was thinking, or they could up the MacBook Pros to 1.83 and 2.0 and then put the Low voltage CoreDuo 1.67 in the iBook(MacBook, whatever). The price points on the processors may have gone down a little bit especially if there is any speedbumps from intel. There has never really been that much of a speed difference(processor wise) between the iBook 14" and the Powerbooks. Right now the fastest iBook is at 1.42ghz and the Powerbook is at 1.67ghz, only a 250mhz difference. Powerbook has always been single core and so has the iBook, so I doubt if theyll try to differentiate the lines that way. Theyll prolly use a small difference in processor speed and other added "pro" features to differentiate as they have in the past.
Moto only had a single-core G4 that barely improved over the, what, 5+ years Apple's been stuck with it. That's why the iBook moved from the then-plateued G3 to the G4. But when IBM's G5 didn't make the cut for a laptop, that meant Apple was stuck with marginal increases in the G4. So when the iBook had no choice but to move to the G4, Apple had no choice but to see the speed-differential between the iBook & PowerBook slowly erode.

That is no longer the case with the move to Intel. So the argument that there's "always" been a small speed difference between the two doesn't hold a gram of water now. The MacBook Pro (there, I said it without the gag reflex) will receive the Core Duos, at low to mid-range for now, then "bumping up" when the 17" (and 12/13"?) versions finally ship later this Spring. But I've read that Intel doesn't expect Yonah to surpass 2.33GHz before Merom debuts, so don't expect a series of speedbumps, maybe just one.

And, grab your hankies now; the iBook will receive the Core Solo - which is by no means a "crippled" cpu or machine - that's like saying the first PowerBook G4s were crippled, even quadrapolegic, because they had a lowly 400 & 500MHz G4 in them, far beneathe the current iBook's 1.42GHz... The soonest Apple even needs to consider giving the iBook a Core Duo is around MWSF '07, when all the MacBook Pros will have (likely) transitioned to the 64bit Merom. Same "crippled" myth-debunking goes for Intel Integrated Graphics, 4200 or 5400rpm hard drives, etc...

Listen closely, "It's supposed to be a low-end consumer laptop, not a supercomputing Unreal Tournament screamer!"

gregarious119

Jan 28, 2006, 10:00 PM

hulugu

Jan 28, 2006, 10:51 PM

It seems like every other person posting here has some kind of psychological problem with the new laptop names. Why?

MacBook Pro just seems like the result of an insistence to change rather than creating a necessary or important change.

Is it mysticism over previous names? Because names change with product changes. Doi. And "Power" is kind of retarded if it doesn't run on a PowerPC chip.

There were more than 10 models of Powerbook before the PowerPC was even introduced in these machines. So, Power never refered to the chip, but was just a name.

Is it that you don't like Macs? Jobs said he wanted "Mac" in the name of Macintosh-running products, and I think he's right - it IS the biggest part of what sets them apart, ain't it?

The insistence on putting the word 'Mac' creates a wierd naming system:
Powerbook = MacBook Pro
iBook = MacBook
iMac (G3, G4, G5) = iMac
Mac Mini = Mac Mini?
Powermac = MacMac/MacPro

I just don't get it. Macbook seems like a good name to me - Macintosh + Notebook = MacBook. Better than Sony T-Series X12951 or whatever crud the competition calls their poop.

I'm glad with Jobs' return he rid the company all the different models and simplified the lines to what we have today. Apple's naming system works.

The other day I saw someone's signature that said "I'll NEVER call it a MacBook" or something...you know, that's just plain irrational. There is already a bias against Mac users in that some people consider them to be marked by irrational behaviour and thinking...let's not further it along by having emotional attachments to product names. I am sure the average Mac consumer doesn't really care that much about the name, MacBook versus PowerBook. Any other company could have chosen to call their machine a powerbook. At least MacBook is distinguishing!

I'll pretend that Windows users don't have their own irrationality and websites that celebrate the greatness of Gates, but this site is not a PR site, not for the aveage user to come and see how well-mannered all we Mac users are, this is for people to talk about, bitch about, and sometimes praise Apple and its products. And no, another company couldn't call their machine a Powerbook because Apple has been calling their laptops Powerbooks for a long time. This is similar to IBMs Thinkpad, if you know anything about computers, you know what a Powerbook is.

Stella

Jan 28, 2006, 11:19 PM

Duo chips come in a single configuration?! Now that's just silly... :rolleyes: :D ;)

I'm sure you meant those Core chips...

Intel will release Single core chips ( sorry if i called them duos... ) and they aren't that much cheaper than the Duos.

On another topic.. ( not targeted to you, MacQuest ) I really wish people would stop whining about the name MacBook / Pro. Its a name, get over it. Get a Life.

Seriously.

beatle888

Jan 28, 2006, 11:33 PM

I know nothing about front row, but if you can use the arrow keys that great. I just feel that having the IR sensor on the top is better.

i understand. it was just funny hearing the guy say he wanted a remote for a laptop that he uses while it rests on his lap (or was it belly?).

nataku

Jan 29, 2006, 12:02 AM

Honestly, I don't think that the next iBook (MacBook without the Pro) will feature a dual core processor. Besides, most iBook users are people who have iMacs, dual core if Intel version, and college students. I do believe that they will use Core-Solo to keep prices down, also, it has enough power to do multimedia tasks without all the bells and whistles of a Pro-grade machine. However, if they do use Core-Duo chips, it would be at lower clock speeds, which might not be advisable (ex. the G4 vs. G5 on a laptop. G5 is technically better but realistically sucked because of the lower clock speeds.) iSight... I would definitely say yes to that. FrontRow, gee.. I don't think looking at a 12/13/14 inch screen, widescreen or not, all the way from the couch, would be a nice thing to do but considering Apple's current lineup, it would be sad to see the next iBook be the only one without FrontRow.

dornoforpyros

Jan 29, 2006, 12:10 AM

well if the macbook pro has a dual core chip & the macbook just has a single chip than it would actually make a big difference between the two lines for once.

danielwsmithee

Jan 29, 2006, 02:02 AM

Has it ever caused anyone to pause that Apple hasn't included any type of Media Card reader in any of their new form factors? For as much as they're pushing iLife, I thought for sure they'd start integrating some sort of multi-reader into new case designs.

I know that most new camera's have USB 2.0, but even my 1.5 year old Canon Digital Rebel still runs on USB 1.1, and there's no WAY you'll catch me downloading my RAW pics off using that.

Anyway, just pondering...Anyone care to start this rabbit trail?

There are too many formats. I could see if every camera used the same type of memory. I can't see Apple putting 8 ugly wholes on a machine when only one is used.

The external readers available are great for that sort of thing. If you are getting the new MacBook Pro an Express Card based reader will be along soon enough.

danielwsmithee

Jan 29, 2006, 02:13 AM

milkaxor

Jan 29, 2006, 02:56 AM

Uh, cuz that's how the computer industry works? You get more for less money every time there is a system update.

$2299 - 933Mhz G4, 60GB, SuperDrive, GeForce4 MX, 256MB

$1999 - Dual core G5 @ 2ghz, 512MB, 160GB, SuperDrive (double-layer), NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB

Why would Apple sell this G5 for LESS than the significantly slower G4? :rolleyes:

There seems to be something wrong with your comparison. You aren't using a next revision of the powermac. That is a significant jump with plenty of stops along the way. Also, you missed the part where I said they have been selling ibooks, well, at their current price point of 999. Why would they lower it? To entice more people into buying macs? To keep up with other laptops in that price range? The first is done through quality products and designs, the latter apple doesn't do. To think you will see the iBook at a lower price than 1k when it is introduced seems absurd to me.

nataku

Jan 29, 2006, 03:27 AM

The way I see apples line up.

MacBook mini -
This is the new 12 PowerBook. But it is now using a 10" WXGA screen, 2 lbs, and the new Ultra Low Voltage Core Duo CPU. Price ~$1400

MacBook -
The iBook replacement 13.3" widescreen economical. But there is an option to upgrade to dual core. Price $999 and $1300

MacBook Pro -
Current 15" offering will be upgaded to 1.83 -> 2 Ghz same price points.

MacBook XL -
Top of the line 17"

MacBook mini with a 10 inch screen??? "Ultra" low voltage processor? Half of the physical dimensions of your MacBook would be the battery I suppose. Sorry but I also doubt that Apple will immediately upgrade the 1.83Ghz MBPro since it hasn't even been 6 months out in the Market.

I know that MacBook sounds a bit weird but putting an XL after makes it sound like some Tshirt.

Natron

Jan 29, 2006, 05:02 AM

Elrond39

Jan 29, 2006, 07:38 AM

guffman

Jan 29, 2006, 08:49 AM

Everyone here who doubts there will be a laptop under the $999 price point, or thinks Apple selling one below that is "absurd", what did you say about the mac mini? I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, it just seems like saying "Apple doesn't care about making a cheaper product", is kinda disproven by the mac mini.

It's just that the Mac Mini was able to be so cheap becuase it didn't include anything. No monitor, no keyboard, no battery, no mouse, and barley the specs that a low-end laptop user would want, unless you get the $700 model and even then your without all of the above. So, becuase a laptop is a complete package, it just doesn't seem reasonable for a laptop that comes with OSX, iLife '06, and all the other pre-installed software to start under $999. I hope I'm wrong, but considering it's Apple, I somehow doubt it.

AidenShaw

Jan 29, 2006, 09:23 AM

I'd like to question all the posts that say that QuickTransit (Rosetta) would "suck" on a Solo...

Can anyone back up that claim with facts?

It would seem like there are three possible ways that Rosetta could work.

Rosetta itself is single-threaded - even when running an application that is multi-threaded on a dual CPU. (Virtual PC is like this - even on a dual it can only use one CPU)
Rosetta mimics the thread behaviour of the emulated application. Single-threaded apps run in a single Rosetta thread, multi-threaded apps run in multi-threads (each app thread is a Rosetta thread)
Rosetta runs additional threads for Rosetta work - so that a single-threaded app can do application work on one CPU and Rosetta overhead on another. (Not sure that this would be possible - since the application would need to wait for code to be translated, doing the translation in a separate thread might not increase parallelism.)

If you Yahoo! for "rosetta single-threaded", it looks like #3 is not the case.

Yet, #3 is the only case where a dual would really help Rosetta compared to a single-core G4. (In case #1, a dual would be of no help for any app. In case #2, a dual would help MT apps - just like a dual PPC would help those apps.)

Can anyone find any proof that #1, #2 or #3 is the case?

Peace

Jan 29, 2006, 09:37 AM

im_noahselby

Jan 29, 2006, 11:59 AM

I predict we will see two iBook configurations:

$1299 - 13.3" - Combo / 60GB HD
$1499 - 13.3" - Super / 80GB HD / iSight

Noah

steve_hill4

Jan 29, 2006, 12:10 PM

By the time the new iBook ( yup..thats the name ) comes out in spring most mainstream apps will be universal binaries so the talk about Rosetta is kind of useless.The typical iBook user wont even use it..I'm sure there will be some folks that try to load up an overbloated non-iBook type app and then complain their new Intel iBook is slow...

But when all is said and done people will like them..Even if they "look" the same ;)
Yeah, they will buy a MacBook Express, buy Adobe CS2 and complain it won't run or is too slow, (requires 384MB for single app, so the 512MB shipped RAM would just do it, but if using more than one app, might not be enough RAM).

In response to AidenShaw though, I have to agree it would be more likely not lead to major speed decreases running Rosetta on a new iBook replacement. While it is not clear how it runs, perhaps we could tell by seeing what loads each processor is under during Rosetta usage, (try to minimise usage or stop all Universal binaries first), and if it appears to be running on just the one processor core, we should have an answer to what, if any, effect it might have on a Core Solo.

Unfortunately the only one I have access to is at work and I'm not back in until Wednesday, but can try and run some PPC binaries on it if I get a chance and see what effect we get. If someone wants to beat me to it, feel free.

Peace

Jan 29, 2006, 12:25 PM

Yeah, they will buy a MacBook Express, buy Adobe CS2 and complain it won't run or is too slow, (requires 384MB for single app, so the 512MB shipped RAM would just do it, but if using more than one app, might not be enough RAM).

In response to AidenShaw though, I have to agree it would be more likely not lead to major speed decreases running Rosetta on a new iBook replacement. While it is not clear how it runs, perhaps we could tell by seeing what loads each processor is under during Rosetta usage, (try to minimise usage or stop all Universal binaries first), and if it appears to be running on just the one processor core, we should have an answer to what, if any, effect it might have on a Core Solo.

Unfortunately the only one I have access to is at work and I'm not back in until Wednesday, but can try and run some PPC binaries on it if I get a chance and see what effect we get. If someone wants to beat me to it, feel free.

I just turned off one of the cores on my Intel iMac.
I then opened 2 Rosetta apps.Excel and NetNewsWire..
I think the "translate" app is Rosetta
While the initial start-up ate up some cpu bandwidth ( around 90% ) it quickly mellowed out to this :

mrgreen4242

Jan 29, 2006, 02:02 PM

There seems to be something wrong with your comparison. You aren't using a next revision of the powermac. That is a significant jump with plenty of stops along the way. Also, you missed the part where I said they have been selling ibooks, well, at their current price point of 999. Why would they lower it? To entice more people into buying macs? To keep up with other laptops in that price range? The first is done through quality products and designs, the latter apple doesn't do. To think you will see the iBook at a lower price than 1k when it is introduced seems absurd to me.

I was just proving a point. I am pretty sure that Apple will have a significantly sub-$1000 iBook. I think $900 or even $800 is definitely in our future. It'll be pretty low spec, but it will be something usable. It may not be right away, but very very soon.

Apple most certainly is moving into the low end, cheap markets. The mini, and it's success points to that. Sure, it's still $300-400 more than a decent Dell machine when you figure in monitor and keyboard and mouse, but it used to be the cheapest iMac G5 was, what, $1500 compared to an $800 Dell. The gap is narrowing.

Apple isn't going to shrink their margins much, but the cost of the machines are going to drop. The G4 and G5 weren't terribly expensive, but the custom designed logic boards, the firmware, etc etc were. Going to Intel is going to cut some cost out of these computers. Apple KNOWS their market share is growing and they would be idiots not to capitalize on this up trend by doing everything they can to sell more computers.

I predict we will see two iBook configurations:

$1299 - 13.3" - Combo / 60GB HD
$1499 - 13.3" - Super / 80GB HD / iSight

They aren't going to have the cheapest laptop over $999.

but that's why the mac mini is an entry-level product... The iBook is maybe the 'entry' laptop, but I'm not sure if Apple will go so far as to put out a cheap laptop. It just doesn't feel right, I guess is all I can say.

We've all been Apple uses so long that we think $1000 is normal and anything less is cheap. You can get a NICE windows laptop for $750 easily. An $800 machine isn't cheap, it is midrange for most of the market.

And lastly... I'd like to question all the posts that say that QuickTransit (Rosetta) would "suck" on a Solo...

Can anyone back up that claim with facts?

It would seem like there are three possible ways that Rosetta could work.
Rosetta itself is single-threaded - even when running an application that is multi-threaded on a dual CPU. (Virtual PC is like this - even on a dual it can only use one CPU)
Rosetta mimics the thread behaviour of the emulated application. Single-threaded apps run in a single Rosetta thread, multi-threaded apps run in multi-threads (each app thread is a Rosetta thread)
Rosetta runs additional threads for Rosetta work - so that a single-threaded app can do application work on one CPU and Rosetta overhead on another. (Not sure that this would be possible - since the application would need to wait for code to be translated, doing the translation in a separate thread might not increase parallelism.)
If you Yahoo! for "rosetta single-threaded", it looks like #3 is not the case.

Yet, #3 is the only case where a dual would really help Rosetta compared to a single-core G4. (In case #1, a dual would be of no help for any app. In case #2, a dual would help MT apps - just like a dual PPC would help those apps.)

Can anyone find any proof that #1, #2 or #3 is the case?

I swear I read that Rosetta loads WITH each thread that normally, so it'd be closest to #3... an app with one thread would load it's thread, with the Rossetta 'headers' and multithreads would run multithreaded... I will see if I can find where I read that.

Photorun

Jan 29, 2006, 02:12 PM

I just turned off one of the cores on my Intel iMac.
I then opened 2 Rosetta apps.Excel and NetNewsWire..
I think the "translate" app is Rosetta
While the initial start-up ate up some cpu bandwidth ( around 90% ) it quickly mellowed out to this :

You wouldn't to happen any of the more intensive apps like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign to see how they perform and/or use up processors under Rosetta, would ya?

Peace

Jan 29, 2006, 02:18 PM

You wouldn't to happen any of the more intensive apps like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign to see how they perform and/or use up processors under Rosetta, would ya?

If you could point me to where Photoshop sells for less than $15,000 sure! :D

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 02:45 PM

But I checked for the proce difference of the core solo and core duo. It's 20 bucks of difference for same frequency. Actually intel doesn't really make core solos. The available core solo is a duo where one of the chips is disabled afterwards. So productions costs are the same.

So I think the Macbooks will get the slowest Core Duo available (when it will be much cheeper) so Rosetta will run smoothly. At the same time as the MacBooks get the update, I think there will also be an upgrade on the Pro line with 17" (and I pray for a 12") model.

The similarity in pricing is what bothers me. I don't understand why Apple would still insist on using a single core chip which is terrible in multi-tasking when the dual core chips are almost the exact same price. The only thing I can think of is that Apple could not use the upper end (2.0 GHz) chips in the MBP because of thermal issues or would not out of their stubborn desire for profit margins. Otherwise they could have had MBPs at 2.0 and 1.86 GHz and iBooks/MacBooks at 1.86 and 1.67 GHz. I am concerned that with their specs., Apple will price themselves out of the market compared to the competition--I expect Core Solos with integrated graphics to be under $1000 in PCs.

Also, I am uncertain buying a Core Solo would be all that wise--for reasons other than Rosetta issues. The future seems to be looking toward dual-core and 64 bit computing (a big boon for Intel chips because it adds available registers). To be without both seems a bit foolish.

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 02:53 PM

As I understand it, it's not that they necessarily disable a perfectly good core (although they could if Core Solo demand called for that), but that one core may have tested as a failure.

Do you have any solid information on that? It seems that this might be the case, and that Intel might also disable a good core if needed. If the latter happened, it would be interesting to know if it could be reactivated.

Also, Yonah will be pin compatible with Merom = DIY upgrade?

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 02:55 PM

MBP is already at 1.86 GHz, other notebooks are using the Core Duo 2 GHz chip, and Intel is already selling a Core Duo at 2.16 GHz. I suspect there will be at least a 2.33 GHz Core Duo (or even 2.5 GHz) available by the time the iBook is introduced in Q2, and there is certainly enough room between a 2.33 GHz Duo and a 1.66 GHz Duo. Of course, the display resolution, memory capacity, graphics and ports will also differentiate them.

According to Intel's own roadmap, Yonah/Core Duo will only achieve 2.33 GHz after the next, only and final revision of this chip (Q2 or Q3?). 2.33 is the top speed for this chip.

jhu

Jan 29, 2006, 03:05 PM

Do you have any solid information on that? It seems that this might be the case, and that Intel might also disable a good core if needed. If the latter happened, it would be interesting to know if it could be reactivated.

Also, Yonah will be pin compatible with Merom = DIY upgrade?

intel did it before when the 486sx came out, which had the fpu disabled because it was.

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 03:07 PM

Where in Intel's roadmap does it show that there will be no speed bumps for the Core Duo for the next 6 months?

Go to any good PC info website, e.g., www.anandtech.com or www.tomshardware.com. Core Duos will not exceed 2.13 GHz for a while--a disappointment to many tech sites when compared to Dothan's speed.

Of course there will be speed bumps. The fastest chip will, however, continue to be significantly more expensive then the rest, and will probably not make its way into the MBP. And Apple CAN underclock chips (I know, it sounds stupid, but so is buying a Core Solo for the same price as a Core Duo) if it feels it really needs to cripple the iBook to differentiate them from the MacBook Pro. Underclocking also reduces power consumption significantly.

Better than underclocking is undervolting. Many PC sites show how to do this yourself to a regular Pentium M. This produces almost identical results to the much higher priced UV chips sold by Intel.

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 03:09 PM

i'd like to speculate about the price difference between the Low Voltage Core Duos and the Core Solos...

...Apple could claim they have dual-core in every Mac if they adopt the Low Voltage Duos...

These are more expensive than regular Core Duos so I doubt they will be used in an iBook/MacBook; although I could see Apple using them in a new portable line with prices equivalent to or higher than the MBP.

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 03:30 PM

A Celeron M based upon a Yonah core certainly wouldn't be that lousy.

First, I haven't even seen any new on a Celeron Yonah chip--do they even exist?

Second, the two points of distinction between a P-M and a Celeron-M are:
(1) the C-M has a lower cache
(2) the C-M does not include Intel Speed-Step technology

Do you really think Apple will use a Celeron only to give up battery life?

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 03:34 PM

Agree with you, it will be a consumer product. But so is the iBook. There's no difference. I have to disagree with anyone that will think it will have single core. Any rosetta app will be much too slow. Second, Firewire will be there. Too may consumer camcorders rely on this. But it will be 400, not 800. No need for in consumer models.

but what do you mean by crippled? Do you expect 256MB or 128MB of vram? Not in a low/mid budget laptop. That's just unrealistic. But that's not crippling a product. It's just balancing product between cost and features, while still providing an adequate product for the majority of consumers.

Actually, Integrate and a discrete 64 MB VRAM solution is par for Low-range laptops; 128MB VRAM is par for Mid-range laptops; and 256MB VRAM is par for high-end. This will all necessarily go up a notch to 128-256-512 when Windows Vista goes mainstream toward the end of this year. Personally, I think Fall will be a critical transition period.

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 03:36 PM

No, by crippling I mean Apple intentionally slowing the bus down, underclocking the chip, lowering the cache, or something to make the hardware 20% or so slower than the low-end MBP.

But with iMovie now having real-time effects I do expect that 128MB VRAM will be the min. standard for Intel Macs. You can already get a 256MB card for the iMac which is pretty amazing considering how behind the times Mac video cards have been in the past.

Perhaps amazing for Macs but not PCs--Apple now has to compete with equivalent hardware--a good thing in my book.

Stridder44

Jan 29, 2006, 03:42 PM

All you guys bring your doubts and such, just like before the MacBook Pro's were out. "Rosetta will be slow" this, "Emulation" that....in the end they turned out faster, even if they were dual core. I wouldn't worry.

Val-kyrie

Jan 29, 2006, 03:45 PM

I agree.

For those who are interested, here is a link (http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2719) to a Guide for New Notebook Technologies from a PC site--I know it's not Mac, but the guide is still useful, and most of you would find it informative. Perhaps it will help some of you decide what you want in your laptops before you buy.

Here's the main issues with this new iBook / Mac Book, (Mini Mac)

- If it has only a Intel Core Solo, I don't think it will be substantially faster than the current G4 (save the system bus) which is much faster, 667 MHz).

- I am hearing the Core Solo actually costs Apple close to the same as the Core Duo (maybe 50-100 bucks more).

So if this is true and it becomes public knowledge, how will this sit with Apple consumers.
Not well.

It will be exposed as a blatant and obvious attempt by Apple to "cripple" the iBook, in order to have some reason to purchase the $2000.00 Mac Book Pro, thus driving up sales of the Mac Book Pro.

Not going to fly with me. I would hate to be a Core Solo iBook purchaser to find out it is 25 %, maybe 50 % faster than a G4 PB, not good.

So there is no reason Apple should use a Core Solo in the iBook, except for this ploy of driving people to spend much more money on the Mac Book Pro

- White is so old, and to me a disaster. It needs to go. I am a Mac Sys admin, and embarrassed by the "white" and the thickness, please a New Design

- Sleeker, silver, black, something.

It seems to me on the Mac Book Pro and the new Intel iMac Apple is just rushing to get the Intel machines "out there", just to do it. That's fine, but I am not going to be the guinea pig on the Rev A's.

We see no radical design changes, Yet.

Why?, because the next generation Mac Books and maybe iBooks will have the new cases.

In fact I bet the cases are already finished and Apple is just waiting until June / July to introduce them.

Here's to hoping the new iBook / Mac Book have the new case designs, I do think a new iBook and Mini Mac are slated to be introduced very soon, like Feb. March.

And the Mini Mac. It also better have a Core Duo (option) and still be cheap or I ain't buying, and it better not be "White".

Also, this Summer / Fall the Intel Merom chip comes out, so maybe that is when we see newly redesigned Apple cases.

I still think from here on out All Apple Intel offerings should be Dual Core, at least, (Quad Core anyone?)

MacQuest

Jan 29, 2006, 04:10 PM

All I've got to say is:

[all models widescreen]

11" MacBook [Core Solo / 128mb integrated graphics] @ $799
13" MacBook [Core Solo / 128mb integrated graphics / SuperDrive BTO option] @ $999 / $1199 with SuperDrive
13" MacBook Pro [Core Duo] @ $1499
17" MacBook Pro [Core Duo] @ $2,999

and [drumroll please]

17" MacBook Pro [Quad Core Duo] @ $3,499

You heard it here first! I ROCK!!!

:D

By the way, I'm in NO WAY a fan of integrated graphics but if I'm not mistaken, this would increase Apple's profit margins on the MacBooks, and Apple is definately a fan of increased profit margins [and they should be].

AidenShaw

Jan 29, 2006, 06:02 PM

I swear I read that Rosetta loads WITH each thread that normally, so it'd be closest to #3...
The real question, then, is whether this actually results in increased parallelism. Threads are a good way to isolate program tasks (and therefore simplify the programming and reduce bugs) - but if the application-level task just switches back and forth between the emulated thread and the Rosetta thread, there is no extra parallelism and a Duo and a Solo would perform at the same speed.

The real clincher would be to look at application benchmarks - if an app that never uses more than 100% of one CPU on a dual G4, and the same app under Rosetta on a Duo does use more than 100% of a CPU - then one should question the performance of Rosetta on a Solo.

jMini

Jan 29, 2006, 06:07 PM

uses an iPod hard drive.

Anyone got any reasons for these much smaller hardrives not being used in laptops? less reliable/fast???

I think that splitting the "macbook" line 3 ways makes sense, IMO alot of people use laptops solely for word processing and not much else. For example i could do with one for notes in lectures and dont NEED a laptop powerful enough to do anything else..

pjkelnhofer

Jan 29, 2006, 07:23 PM

I would be surprised to see an iSight and Front Row (more surprised to see an iSight).

And I still think having MacBook and MacBook Pro could provide for some consumer confusion, but I guess it kinda makes sense.

How is that confusing? Look at other companies computer names. Which is the entry level and which is the high end Inspiron or XPS? I think that you look at the specs and the price and you quickly have the two sorted out.

rhsgolfer33

Jan 29, 2006, 07:34 PM

I'll be happy as long as it doesnt have integrated graphics like alot seem to think. They suck, theres no comparison even to the cheap card thats in the current iBooks, I'd take the 9550 over integrated anyday. I doubt theyd do integrated when theres so many cheap cards available, but just the possibilty of it scares me. I wouldnt mind a core solo but would prefer a duo and a widescreen is a must. Would love front row as well. Dedicated graphics, a 1.6ghz or higher core solo, a 12-13 inch widescreen, and frontrow(w/ or w/o remote included) would sell me right away. I'll be using it for college, a little photoshop, travel, media, and a few games so a set up like that would be great.

kalisphoenix

Jan 29, 2006, 07:47 PM

*drools* Quad Core Duos *drools*

MacQuest

Jan 29, 2006, 07:58 PM

*drools* Quad Core Duos *drools*

Get the bib and napkins ready 'cause I'm gonna say it one more time:

17" MacBook Pro [Quad Core Duo] @ $3,499

:D

Chundles

Jan 29, 2006, 08:15 PM

Get the bib and napkins ready 'cause I'm gonna say it one more time:

17" MacBook Pro [Quad Core Duo] @ $3,499

:D

Oh goody..... another $5000 Apple laptop.....:rolleyes:
Before anybody goes "but he said $3499" well $3499 there = $4700 here plus the likely $300 "Southern Hemisphere Tax" = $5000.

Why can't it come in at the current 1.83GHz MacBook Pro pricetag at the WWDC with a reshuffle of the 15.4" MacBook Pro down the price scale.

The current top of the line MBP sells for the same price as the 17" PowerBook. There is a massive leap between the 14" iBook and the 1.67GHz MacBook Pro that needs to be filled, I'd like to see 13.3," 15.4" and 17" MacBook Pro's in the current 12," 15" and 17" PowerBook price ranges. One model each with BTO options up the wahzoo.

AidenShaw

Jan 29, 2006, 08:33 PM

Get the bib and napkins ready 'cause I'm gonna say it one more time:

17" MacBook Pro [Quad Core Duo] @ $3,499

:D
One of the basic intelligence tests is to see if someone is able to recognize analogies and patterns....

Doesn't "Core Quad" sound like the logical progression to "Core Solo" and "Core Duo" ?????

And to emphasize the point, would you rather have a "Quad Core Duo" or a "Quad Core Solo"? Which would be faster?

Natron

Jan 29, 2006, 08:41 PM

How is that confusing? Look at other companies computer names. Which is the entry level and which is the high end Inspiron or XPS? I think that you look at the specs and the price and you quickly have the two sorted out.

I think MacBook Express or something makes a lot more sense then just having a computer called "MacBook".

gregarious119

Jan 29, 2006, 08:48 PM

I think MacBook Express or something makes a lot more sense then just having a computer called "MacBook".

I don't know though...MacBook Express is a mouthfull. Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like "iBook" does. Macbook or MacBook Lite seem a little more Apple-esque. I definitely can see where you're going, I just don't know if Express is a a good word when you stick MacBook in front of it.

We'll just have to wait until April 1 to find out I suppose. Maybe it'll be something totally unthought of. I know only one person thought of Macbook before MWSF, so who knows what'll come out of there next.

spencecb

Jan 29, 2006, 09:15 PM

I find it hard to believe that Apple would make the specs of the iBook (MacBook) so close to the new MacBook Pro. It would just be silly on their part, because what would the significance be of paying all that extra money to get the MacBook Pro when the new iBook is almost just as good?

I am willing to bet the new iBook will only have one core, have an option for a built in iSight, and otherwise remain the same as the current iBook offering.

MrCrowbar

Jan 29, 2006, 09:24 PM

The new iBook will be called MightBook, I tell you. :)
Powermac will be UltraMac and there will also be a Mac Nano that's as small as a CD jewel case.

Another possibility would be MacBook Consumer. :p
There will also be the iFlat tablet, the iPhonePod and the iToy (Apples gaming console with built in iSight). Not to forget the iScream which will be the coolest and sweetest device ever. There's also the iMap, a GPS unit with sudden motion sensor (and support for the IMAP Mail Protocol) and the iRobot wich will leave Sorny's Aibo in the dust. An all in one supercomputer for research called iNstein and a brain function enhancement helmet called iDea will be introduced shortly. :D

The above lines are purely fictional. Any similarities with real devices is coincidal and not intended.

MacQuest

Jan 29, 2006, 09:52 PM

One of the basic intelligence tests is to see if someone is able to recognize analogies and patterns....

Doesn't "Core Quad" sound like the logical progression to "Core Solo" and "Core Duo" ?????

And to emphasize the point, would you rather have a "Quad Core Duo" or a "Quad Core Solo"? Which would be faster?

Oh snap! I just done got schooled by one of them there intelligent-type peoples. I've heard of them b4. He must be edumicated with a name like Aiden too.

Calm down Einstein. In response to your question of "Doesn't "Core Quad" sound like the logical progression to "Core Solo" and "Core Duo" ?????"...

No. Not unless it's a single processor with 4 cores, seeing as how the Core Solo is a single processor with a single core and the Core Duo is a single processor with two cores.

I was simply talking about using two Core Duo's in the same machine. So basic intelligence would have told you that a Core Quad moniker in the sense that I intended it does not follow the current naming convention, or pattern, used by Intel. Recognize that?

But thanks for attempting to analyze my analogy... oh wait, I never provided an analogy.

Here's a big word for you since you seem to like to throw them around: Dictionary.

Get one and then use it to test your basic intelligence, Aiden.

P.S.
People who use a multitude of question marks and/or exclamation marks at the end of a sentence tend to come off as... non-intelligent.

KindredMAC

Jan 29, 2006, 10:15 PM

Oh snap! I just done got schooled by one of them there intelligent-type peoples. I've heard of them b4. He must be edumicated with a name like Aiden too.

Calm down Einstein. In response to your question of "Doesn't "Core Quad" sound like the logical progression to "Core Solo" and "Core Duo" ?????"...

No. Not unless it's a single processor with 4 cores, seeing as how the Core Solo is a single processor with a single core and the Core Duo is a single processor with two cores.

I was simply talking about using two Core Duo's in the same machine. So basic intelligence would have told you that a Core Quad moniker in the sense that I intended it does not follow the current naming convention, or pattern, used by Intel.

But thanks for attempting to analyze my analogy... oh wait, I never provided an analogy.

Here's a big word for you since you seem to like to throw them around: Dictionary.

Get one and then use it to test your basic intelligence, Aiden.

P.S.
People who use a multitude of question marks and/or exclamation marks at the end of a sentence tend to come off a little... non-intelligent.

Time to come down from that mighty high horse you have perched yourself on MacQuest. You've done nothing but snipe and rip people apart for having opinions and ideas that are different than yours in this whole post.

Relax dude, this is all for fun and to support our Macrumors habit.

Do you think Apple is watching this and tomorrow morning at the Monday morning meeting say, "Hey Steve, this guy named MacQuest says that we should price our 17" Quad Dual Core MacBook Pro, that we have no intentions on creating, at $3499.00. I think he's on to something."?
Just as that poor sap has uttered those words, fire shoots from Steve Job's eyeballs and engulfs him.... all the while Steve screams to his MacWraiths, "Bring me the one called MacQuest.... his foolishness will not be tolerated."

Supa_Fly

Jan 29, 2006, 10:21 PM

Irrelevant?

And that is why programs dependant on Core Video (like Motion) get faster as VRAM increases?

But hey, here is what Apple writes on it's Core Image info page
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/coreimage/:

"When a programmable GPU is present, Core Image utilizes the graphics card for image processing operations, freeing the CPU for other tasks. And if you have a high-performance card with increased video memory (VRAM), you'll find real-time responsiveness across a wide variety of operations."

Did you note how increased VRAM is needed for real time effects?

As I said, you'll never see shared memory integrated video on a Mac.

THANK GOD WELL SAID!! I was itching to give a slap to whomever said that they wanted no VRAM!!!!

MacQuest

Jan 29, 2006, 10:51 PM

Time to come down from that mighty high horse you have perched yourself on MacQuest. You've done nothing but snipe and rip people apart for having opinions and ideas that are different than yours in this whole post.

Relax dude, this is all for fun and to support our Macrumors habit.

Do you think Apple is watching this and tomorrow morning at the Monday morning meeting say, "Hey Steve, this guy named MacQuest says that we should price our 17" Quad Dual Core MacBook Pro, that we have no intentions on creating, at $3499.00. I think he's on to something."?
Just as that poor sap has uttered those words, fire shoots from Steve Job's eyeballs and engulfs him.... all the while Steve screams to his MacWraiths, "Bring me the one called MacQuest.... his foolishness will not be tolerated."

KindredMAC-
Me and Guffman pointing out to you that, as you stated, "everyone knows what an iBook is and that that is Apple's advantage" therefore implying that a name change to MacBook would be a bad thing, despite the fact that the word Mac should be in any Macintosh computer's name the way Steve Jobs himself has recently stated, is in no way "doing nothing but sniping and ripping people apart".

In that matter, we simply disagreed with you saying that Apple's advantage was a known name as opposed to the direction that they are now going which is to advertise the Macintosh OS by incorporating the word Mac in Apple's computer names.

As far as my sharp tongued response to AidenShaw, you may want to take into consideration that his response to me that started with "One of the basic intelligence tests is to see if someone is able to recognize analogies and patterns...", probably wouldn't exude the most gentle response from anyone.

Yes, "this is all for fun and to support our Macrumors habit", and as an open forum we have the right to disagree, but it's all in how you do it. Although I disagreed with your post yesterday, I didn't attack your intelligence [which would be stupid because I don't know anything about you beyond these forums] the way Aiden tried to attack my intelligence.

AidenShaw

Jan 29, 2006, 11:06 PM

...seeing as how the Core Solo is a single processor with a single core and the Core Duo is a single processor with two cores.
Or "the Core Solo is a single chip with a single processor and the Core Duo is a single chip with two processors"...

A "core" is everything that you've ever called a "processor".

A "dual core" chip is a chip with two processors. Two CPUs. Nothing else makes sense.

2nyRiggz

Jan 29, 2006, 11:11 PM

sounds great bring it on...i wont get one though.

Bless

beatle888

Jan 29, 2006, 11:38 PM

MacinDoc

Jan 29, 2006, 11:53 PM

According to Intel's own roadmap, Yonah/Core Duo will only achieve 2.33 GHz after the next, only and final revision of this chip (Q2 or Q3?). 2.33 is the top speed for this chip.
Well, I haven't seen a credible roadmap that describes in detail Intel's entire roadmap for the Core Duo, but according to AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1427), the 2.33 GHz Core Duo is due out at about the same time as the iBook, so the difference between the iBook and the MBP could be 50% in terms of CPU clock speed, and there would likely be a large difference in terms of HD and GPU speed. It seems strange to me that Intel would stop production of the Core Duo after only 6-9 months, so I am suspicious of any source that suggests that 2.33 GHz is the end of the road for the Core Duo.

MacQuest

Jan 29, 2006, 11:57 PM

A "core" is everything that you've ever called a "processor".

A "dual core" chip is a chip with two processors. Two CPUs.

That's good to know. Seriously. I thought a Core Duo was a single "processor" with two embedded processors. Admittedly, I didn't know how the Core Duo's were made up physically, nor did I ever say I did.

Now I know it's actually a chip with two processors which are actually considered the cores. I was just misinterpreting the name Core Duo.

Information without unnecessary sarcasm and/or childish belittling sure does lend a lot more credibility to a person trying to convince others of his/her intelligence.

sunfast

Jan 30, 2006, 03:47 AM

mrgreen4242

Jan 30, 2006, 08:16 AM

Does anybody else feel they aren't quite catered for by Apple's laptop lines?

For my requirements the iBook (and it seems its succesor) is far too weedy and compromised yet the MBP is very expensive with more features than I really need. I feel that the priority is for a professional laptop and a cheap entry laptop. What about the rest of us!

In desktop land I'd buy an iMac but I'd like a lappy. I'd love to see a midrange laptop that's somewhere between the two.

The Intel laptop line is very sparse at the moment, but that's to be expected... they are slowly transitioning their hardware to a new platform, and they started from the top down with laptops (and from the middle out with desktops).

They'll get to you (and me, incidentally) soon enough. I suspect that the low esnd MacBook Pro or perhaps a high end iBook will fit the bill for us. In fact, as long as they keep with their current pricing and features scheme, a new 12" (or 13") PowerBook should be about right for people like you and I... $1500, decent CPU (in this case I think 1.67ghz Duo while the other machines are going at 1.83 and 2.0), decent GPU (x1300 or Go7400 or whatever NVidia is comparing to the 1300 right now) with 128mb VRAM, 1.5gb max ram, 80gb 5400rpm HDD, etc etc.

Anyone got any reasons for these much smaller hardrives not being used in laptops? less reliable/fast???

I think that splitting the "macbook" line 3 ways makes sense, IMO alot of people use laptops solely for word processing and not much else. For example i could do with one for notes in lectures and dont NEED a laptop powerful enough to do anything else..
They are quite slow... 4200rpm (like the current iBook/mini drives) with seek/latency times that are another 20% slower than the 2.5" 4200rpm drives. It's doable, but would really cripple the computer (the iBook and mini HDD performance is barley adequate).

What WOULD probably work, though, is a high speed solid state drive, say 15 to 20gb's, and a 40-60gb 1.8" HDD. There's been talks of this before, and there a few manufactures getting ready to do something similar, mostly for weight and battery issues, as the performance still wouldn't be as good as a standard HDD.

bugfaceuk

Jan 30, 2006, 09:03 AM

I don't think having an isight on a laptop will cause issues. Aren't restuarants and coffeeshops allowed to have cameras in their bathrooms?

It would certainly mean I couldn't take my laptop into any of my customer sites.

bugfaceuk

Jan 30, 2006, 09:12 AM

guffman

Jan 30, 2006, 09:32 AM

It would certainly mean I couldn't take my laptop into any of my customer sites.

What exactly do you do? Wouldn't a peice of tape take care of this problem?

bugfaceuk

Jan 30, 2006, 09:37 AM

What exactly do you do? Wouldn't a peice of tape take care of this problem?

I go into the sites where new automotives are designed and there is a blanket "no camera" policy. Your phone is checked, if it has a camera, it stays at the front desk. Laptops would be no different.

And no, a piece of tape would not do it!

Peace

Jan 30, 2006, 09:45 AM

Old bit of philosophy..
You can please some of the people,some of the time.
You can please all of the people,some of the time.
But you can't please all of the people all of the time.

gnasher729

Jan 30, 2006, 09:55 AM

• Processors: IF Apple uses the Core Solo Intels, that Rosetta would be such a dog that it would put it in the same catagory of performance as my current 900MHz G3 iBook that is 3 years old.

Reality check: MacWorld published some benchmarks that showed that the Dual Core iMac was roughly the same speed as a G5 iMac. It wasn't twice the speed, because these bright spots used applications that didn't take any advantage of the second core. Logical consequence: The same benchmark run on a single core processor would run at about the same speed as a G5.

Compared to your 900 MHz iBook, a Core Solo has twice the clock speed, does more instructions per cycle on the average, has memory bandwidth that makes the G3 absolutely laughable, has a decent vector unit (not quite the same as Altivec, but still quite capable), and it has 2 Megabyte of L2 cache. It absolutely _kills_ a 900 MHz iBook. Of course, Core Duo kills it twice :-)

That said, Core Solo is only $30 less than Core Duo at half the performance, so using it in any computer is just insane. You either go slow and cheap, or fast and expensive; Core Solo is slow and expensive (compared to Core Duo) which makes it pointless. Expect a nice Celeron M with 256 KB L2 cache, same chip that you find in any other sub-$1000 Intel-based notebook.

If Apple sells an iBook for $999, they want about 27% gross profit, leaving about $730 for building the machine, selling it, warranty and support. That leaves less than $600 for parts. Do you think there will be enough money for a $210 processor?

MacinDoc

Jan 30, 2006, 09:58 AM

That said, Core Solo is only $30 less than Core Duo at half the performance, so using it in any computer is just insane. You either go slow and cheap, or fast and expensive; Core Solo is slow and expensive (compared to Core Duo) which makes it pointless. Expect a nice Celeron M with 256 KB L2 cache, same chip that you find in any other sub-$1000 Intel-based notebook.

If Apple sells an iBook for $999, they want about 27% gross profit, leaving about $730 for building the machine, selling it, warranty and support. That leaves less than $600 for parts. Do you think there will be enough money for a $210 processor?
Exactly.

gnasher729

Jan 30, 2006, 10:06 AM

...Apple could claim they have dual-core in every Mac if they adopt the Low Voltage Duos...

Low Voltage Duos are considerably more expensive than normal Core Duos. It is the kind of chip that Apple would use if they want to build a notebook with ten hour battery life: Low Voltage Duo, massive Flash memory for storage, ultra-light, ultra-fast, ultra-expensive, ultra-long battery life.

AidenShaw

Jan 30, 2006, 10:16 AM

Calm down Einstein. In response to your question of "Doesn't "Core Quad" sound like the logical progression to "Core Solo" and "Core Duo" ?????"...
MacQuest, I apologize for the words "intelligence test" - I didn't mean it to sound as demeaning as it did.

Your capitalization of "Quad" in "Quad Core Duo" led me to believe that you were suggesting that as a proper name, which I wanted to point out as being inconsistent with the existing pattern.
_______________________

The whole concept of multi-core is making it confusing to describe a system.

It used to be that "processor", "core", and "CPU" all meant the same thing, and a "chip" had one of them.

The "processor", "core" or "CPU" was the active thing that actually did the work.

Now, a "chip" can have multiple "active things". It's reasonable to say that a dual-core chip has "2 processors", or "2 cores", or "2 CPUs". It's very difficult to describe any functional difference between a system with two cores on one chip and a system with two cores on two chips (one core on each chip). Both appear to have 2 CPUs or 2 processors to the user and software.

Some people and companies, however, are calling the "chip" the processor, so they'd say that a dual-core system has one processor.

In some cases, it's clear why this choice is made - licensing.

Intel wants a dual-core chip to be licensed as a single CPU, otherwise it makes the system cost more when software is purchased. So "processor" becomes less of a physical entity, and more of a licensing concept.

I prefer to consider the core to be a CPU. I have a number of 4 CPU Opteron servers. Some are big boxes with 4 chip sockets. Some are smaller, cheaper boxes with 2 chip sockets. To my applications, however, they are identical. A couple of my 4 socket boxes have dual-core chips - I call those 8 CPU systems.

bugfaceuk

Jan 30, 2006, 10:36 AM

Anyhow it would be "Core Quado"

Peel

Jan 30, 2006, 10:47 AM

...a CDRW version for just under $1000? Haaaaaaaaaaaa what a joke in mid 2006. The often heard "But Mac hardware is more expensive" would be fully justified"

Not so. A look on Dell's website shows that the top of the line Inspiron (their entry level laptop) runs at 1.7GHz, and comes with a combo drive. The price? $1036 (though there is a current mail-in $100 rebate bringing it to $936). I don't see Dell's customers laughing at them (but then I don't read the dell-fan forums (is there even such a thing?)).

If Apple makes a combo drive standard fare, and gives the option of a superdrive BTO, then they're on even price point with a bare bones windows box. This doesn't include the Apple extras like built-in bluetooth, and a possible built-in isight.

DTphonehome

Jan 30, 2006, 11:08 AM

Anyone got any reasons for these much smaller hardrives not being used in laptops? less reliable/fast???

Yeah, iPod HDs are not designed for regular "computer" use. While you can boot from them and use them as a primary disk, you run a major risk of HD failure. They aren't vented like regular HDs, and the heat they generate will push the life way down. This is why the "home-on-iPod" feature which was supposed to be part of 10.3 was pulled. They couldn't guarantee the reliability of those drives. I suppose if they vented it well enough it could work, but I bet the drives themselves are inherently less reliable than regular HDs. And definitely slower.

danielwsmithee

Jan 30, 2006, 12:07 PM

Low Voltage Duos are considerably more expensive than normal Core Duos. It is the kind of chip that Apple would use if they want to build a notebook with ten hour battery life: Low Voltage Duo, massive Flash memory for storage, ultra-light, ultra-fast, ultra-expensive, ultra-long battery life.

That's the kind of laptop I want!

MacinDoc

Jan 30, 2006, 12:29 PM

Anyhow it would be "Core Quado"
More likely "Core Quad" or "Core Quattro". The term "Quado" mixes 2 different languages.

mrgreen4242

Jan 30, 2006, 01:12 PM

Yup, me too. Although I feel like I am jumping the gun a little given that I have not yet seen the specs for an Intel iMacBook.

I guess the MacBook Pro feels pretty close to my wish list, but it seems so expensive. Although I would like an iSight on my "home" laptop, I don't want it on my business laptop. Or FrontRow.

I guess maybe it's more that the laptop line isn't setting me alight at the moment. As many others have said though, maybe we just need to see the "whole line-up" before we know what we would like.

Just something I was thinking (I feel the same way you do) is that the current PB lineup has a $1999 15" and a $1499 12" that has almost the same specs, just a small step down CPU wise and a moderate step down GPU wise... everything else is about the same. It wouldn't be crazy to think we'll get a 12" MBP with the same specs as the current $1999 model, but with a less powerful GPU and maybe 64mb of VRAM in just a few months for $1499.

MrCrowbar

Jan 30, 2006, 01:37 PM

I guess the next MacBook Pro - i.e. the 12", 17" and a slightly updated 15" (with modem xor FW800) - will appear at April 1st. We might already see the rest of the MacBook Pro line the day the actual 15" ships (mid February), but I doubt it. Let's pray, ppl!

It makes sence they used the 15" for a prototype. The 12" could have the same things inside (remove the card slot and the usb on the right) only rearranged to fit the 12" form factor. It defenitely will be thicker than 1" so a dual layer drive should fit itside. But on the other hand, apple can't sell a 12" with DL and a 15" with only SL, so the 15" will recieve an update at the same occasion. "The new MacBook Pro: in all sizes and dual layer is back". I'm wonder how they will do the 17" in terms of CPU. Although Steve said "dual processors in every Macbook Pro", they can't just put the fastest Core Duo in there...

Dual processors doesn't imply there's only one die inside, right? I'd love to see a 17" with 2,3 Core Duo and one with Dual Core Duo. The latter one should finally run Aperture smoothly (decent GPU and loads of RAM provided). And to show everyone you got 4 Processors inside your laptops, there are 4 apples on the back of the screen. Yea, I know, I shouldn't write in a drunken haze :D .

MacinDoc

Jan 30, 2006, 01:59 PM

Dual processors doesn't imply there's only one die inside, right? I'd love to see a 17" with 2,3 Core Duo and one with Dual Core Duo. The latter one should finally run Aperture smoothly (decent GPU and loads of RAM provided). And to show everyone you got 4 Processors inside your laptops, there are 4 apples on the back of the screen. Yea, I know, I shouldn't write in a drunken haze :D .
Sadly, I don't think multi-die processors will ever arrive on any Apple portable. On the other hand, quad core processors on a single die are on the horizon, and may debut in 2007.

yankeefan24

Jan 30, 2006, 04:24 PM

That's the kind of laptop I want!

words pulled from my mouth. A 13" LV 1.67 GHz Core Duo with ten hours of battery is mine. Tell apple, tell steve, tell intel, tell everyone. Also, while they're at it, redesign it. give it a unique look so people could tell it apart from the MB and the MBPs. Just what i want. Number 2 choice would be a core duo 13" MBP.

Svennig

Jan 30, 2006, 04:40 PM

Exactly.

There's a £100 difference (ish) between the macbook pro and the powerbook 15".

This bought a slimmer design, a built-in iSight, a much better screen, a faster and dual-core processor, and totally new chipset to tie it all together.

If they can put all that in a macbook for £100, they can put a part of it in an ibook for the same (or less, once the price of duos falls).

iBook musts:
Core duo. anything else is making the iBook artificially lame.
Much Much Much better screen. Brighter. More Contrast. More Res

MrCrowbar

Jan 30, 2006, 04:59 PM

I can't see the ne iBook with a Core Solo. Besides, the Core Solo is only 20$ less than the Core Duo. The iBooks were close to the powerbooks in terms of processors in the G4 world. This tradition should be continued with the Core Duos. And as the new iBooks will probably get the iSight, the things that will differ from the MBP would be graphics, optical drive and the HDD, Bus etc. Given the new form factor, the screen should get better. MagSafe is a must.

Wow, we made it back to the thread topic. :)

danielwsmithee

Jan 30, 2006, 06:01 PM

words pulled from my mouth. A 13" LV 1.67 GHz Core Duo with ten hours of battery is mine. Tell apple, tell steve, tell intel, tell everyone. Also, while they're at it, redesign it. give it a unique look so people could tell it apart from the MB and the MBPs. Just what i want. Number 2 choice would be a core duo 13" MBP.

Smaller for me. I want a true compact subnotbook. 10.4" WXGA display (higher resolution so the small screen is still usable). Just a little bit bigger but thinner then the Toshiba Liberetos.

The optical drive would be in a seperate docking station to decrease the thickness!

-Dan

MacinDoc

Jan 30, 2006, 06:04 PM

There's a £100 difference (ish) between the macbook pro and the powerbook 15".

This bought a slimmer design, a built-in iSight, a much better screen, a faster and dual-core processor, and totally new chipset to tie it all together.

If they can put all that in a macbook for £100, they can put a part of it in an ibook for the same (or less, once the price of duos falls).

iBook musts:
Core duo. anything else is making the iBook artificially lame.
Much Much Much better screen. Brighter. More Contrast. More Res
I'm not saying it won't be a Core Duo, but it can't be at the current price. I'm also saying that if it's not a Core Duo, it will be a budget chip, and possibly at a lower price. I sincerely hope that Apple does not use the Core Solo in any of its computers.

MacQuest

Jan 30, 2006, 06:52 PM

The iBooks were close to the powerbooks in terms of processors in the G4 world. This tradition should be continued with the Core Duos.

This wasn't because of an intended "tradition". It was because of IBM's inability to put G5's in the PowerBooks.

From a business perspective, there NEEDS to be a big differentiating factor between the consumer line and the professional line.

That whole "iBook is pretty close to the Powerbook [in terms of speed]" was a mess and cost Apple countless upsells to the professional line. Granted, some people chose to upgrade to the PowerBook because of the other factors [DVI, video spanning, etc.], but a lot more decided to stay with the iBook because of the similarities [most consumers just focus on the processor type and speed] and use the savings on accessories and/or just to save money.

rhsgolfer33

Jan 30, 2006, 07:16 PM

Reality check: MacWorld published some benchmarks that showed that the Dual Core iMac was roughly the same speed as a G5 iMac. It wasn't twice the speed, because these bright spots used applications that didn't take any advantage of the second core. Logical consequence: The same benchmark run on a single core processor would run at about the same speed as a G5.

Compared to your 900 MHz iBook, a Core Solo has twice the clock speed, does more instructions per cycle on the average, has memory bandwidth that makes the G3 absolutely laughable, has a decent vector unit (not quite the same as Altivec, but still quite capable), and it has 2 Megabyte of L2 cache. It absolutely _kills_ a 900 MHz iBook. Of course, Core Duo kills it twice :-)

That said, Core Solo is only $30 less than Core Duo at half the performance, so using it in any computer is just insane. You either go slow and cheap, or fast and expensive; Core Solo is slow and expensive (compared to Core Duo) which makes it pointless. Expect a nice Celeron M with 256 KB L2 cache, same chip that you find in any other sub-$1000 Intel-based notebook.

If Apple sells an iBook for $999, they want about 27% gross profit, leaving about $730 for building the machine, selling it, warranty and support. That leaves less than $600 for parts. Do you think there will be enough money for a $210 processor?

They could do a solo and proably a duo for under $600 build cost.

Core Solo

T1300 1.66ghz Solo w/ Intel 945 PM chipset and Intel wireless: $274
512 MB 667: $40
Ati X1600 w/ 128MB is $30, so by using an X1300 with 64MB you could get down to about $15-$20
160gb in the iMac is about $30, so an 80gb should be around $10-$20
Maximum total for above: $354, that leaves Apple $246 for a case, screen, optical drive, testing(about $25), iSight, software, etc.

For a core duo iBook sub $306 in for $274:
T2300 1.66ghz Core Duo w/ Intel 945 PM chipset and Intel wireless: $306

Max total: $386
That leaves Apple with $214 for a case, screen, optical drive, testing, iSigh, software, etc.

I think it would definetly be possible to use a Core Solo over a Celeron M, and even possible to use a Duo, especially if some of the "add ons" (frontrow, remote, iSight, etc) were made optional or as BTO options. Apple will prolly use their own wireless so that could add a little bit to the cost. My figures were based off of the take apart of the new intel iMac and off of intels price chart, so there could be minor discounts/extra costs in places. I would really doubt a Celeron M, quite a few companies have a sub-$1000 with Pentium M's in them, so thats the least I would expect. Personally I'm expecting a Core Solo at 1.66ghz, would love to see a Duo but would be a little surprised.

MacQuest

Jan 30, 2006, 07:28 PM

MacQuest, I apologize for the words "intelligence test" - I didn't mean it to sound as demeaning as it did.

Your capitalization of "Quad" in "Quad Core Duo" led me to believe that you were suggesting that as a proper name, which I wanted to point out as being inconsistent with the existing pattern.

I wasn't quite sure whether to call it "Quad Core Duo" or not, because I thought that people might think that I was referring to 4 Core Duo's totalling 8 processors. As I said before, I just meant 2 Core Duo's for a total of 4 processors.

So I'll just call it the Core Duo 2x and use that pattern instead. So I predict a:

17" MacBook Pro [Core Duo 2x] @ $3,499

This will compliment [another prediction] the quad core [Intel Merom?] Mac Pro Towers that I believe will be introduced at WWDC and replace the current Quad G5's at a slightly reduced price of $2,999.

I think that the Meroms aren't due until the 2nd half of '06, but maybe Intel will ramp up their production schedule like they did with the Core Duo's.

Back to the 17" MacBook Pro [Core Duo 2x] though, does anyone know if this would be a possibility? I remember all the rumors of a dual 17" G5 Powerbook being possible space-wise, but obviously not heat-wise, seeing as how they couldn' even get one in there.

All you techies out there that know the heat dissipation on the Core Duo's, would the 17" MacBook Pro be able to handle 2 Core Duo's, or maybe some of these other "ultra low wattage" chipsets/processors?

Discuss... :)

MrCrowbar

Jan 30, 2006, 08:37 PM

I heard about that thing that 2 G5 would fit into the 17" Powerbook. The Core Duo can be compared to the late G4 in terms of heat production I think. And if 1 G4 works in a 12" PB (ok, it's getting pretty hot sometimes), then 2 Processors (i.e. 4 cores in total) would be possible in the 17" MBP, especially when using a lower clock rate (cooler).

Maybe we will see such a thing in the future, but not in the first revision. A Processor of another kind and/or more cores sounds more reasonable to me because of the space savings.

Norse Son

Jan 30, 2006, 09:28 PM

The similarity in pricing is what bothers me. I don't understand why Apple would still insist on using a single core chip which is terrible in multi-tasking when the dual core chips are almost the exact same price. The only thing I can think of is that Apple could not use the upper end (2.0 GHz) chips in the MBP because of thermal issues... Otherwise they could have had MBPs at 2.0 and 1.86 GHz and iBooks/MacBooks at 1.86 and 1.67 GHz. I am concerned that with their specs., Apple will price themselves out of the market compared to the competition--I expect Core Solos with integrated graphics to be under $1000 in PCs.

Also, I am uncertain buying a Core Solo would be all that wise--for reasons other than Rosetta issues. The future seems to be looking toward dual-core and 64 bit computing (a big boon for Intel chips because it adds available registers). To be without both seems a bit foolish.
Apple likely chose the 1.66GHz & 1.83GHz Core Duos for the MacBook Pro because of the heavy demand from other PC makers for the 2.0GHz & 2.1GHz. Also, the prices jump significantly for the higher speeds... And, when the supply-constraints ease up they will bump it in speed - and introduce the 17" MBP and (possibly) a 13"WS MBP to replace the 17" & 12" G4 PowerBooks.

So why is the 2.0GHz Core Duo in the iMac - I think that Apple's positioning the iMac for something big later this Spring (iTMS & "Big Media" related), so they wanted their most popular machine out in force when the timing is right.

However, to address your main contention; the cpu is just one small - albeit, significant - part of the total package. In order to get a price target of under $1,300 for a "hi-end" iBook/MacBook, and sub-$1,000 (maybe even an $800 model?) for the base-configuration, Apple will trim other stuff. Going with Intel's Integrated Graphics is almost definite on the low-end machine. And using 4200rpm ATA-100 hard drives, as opposed to 5400 or 7200rpm S-ATA, will shave more off the cost...

There are several ways for Apple to reach the price target for a consumer (spelled with a capital "C"!) laptop. And, as it has been mentioned numerous times, the "true" audience for the iBook doesn't need all those bells & whistles... So, if you're using Intel graphics (quite decent, from the sound of it), and ATA drives, and lower-res screens, etc., then what's the point of putting a Core Duo in the danged thing?!?!?

It's not as simple as, "There's only a $20 price difference...". Add all the other cost savings that a CONSUMER laptop DOES NOT NEED and that's how Apple can release an iBook Intel for as low as $800. And don't be surprised if there's still a 14" upper-end model for $1,300, that has a dedicated GPU and the 1.83GHz Core Solo as well. Just don't expect a Core Duo in a laptop whose target-market has no REALISTIC need for it.

And I agree with what has been said regarding Universal Binaries being available for most apps that an iBook Intel user would (logically) use by the time it ships in March or April. Dual-core and 64bit?... It will be at least 3 years before consumer apps begin to cross that bridge.