Intel iBook Processor Speculation

[MacRumors]

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

Appleinsider speculates (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1534) on what today's MacBook Pro processor bump (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060214085150.shtml) might mean with respect to the upcoming Intel iBook.

Apple's MacBook Pro was upgraded from 1.67GHz and 1.83GHz models to 1.83GHz and 2.0GHz models respectively. In additional there is an option for a 2.16GHz Build-to-Order model. To review, Intel presently has the following Yonah processors in their product line:

T1300 (Single) - 1.66GHz
T2300 (Dual) - 1.66GHz
T2400 (Dual) - 1.83GHz - MacBook Pro 1.83GHz
T2500 (Dual) - 2.00GHz - MacBook Pro 2.00GHz
T2600 (Dual) - 2.16GHz - MacBook Pro BTO

Low Voltage Versions
L2300 (Dual) - 1.5GHz
L2400 (Dual) - 1.66GHz

While it appears there is no reliable information available on what will be used in the Intel-based iBook, the Single Core T1300 1.66GHz model has been mentioned as the possible candidate for use in the upcoming iBook. With the upgrade of the MacBook Pro line into the 1.83GHz+ models, it opens up the possibility that Apple could use the 1.66GHz Dual Core processor in the iBook.

That being said, previous speculation by ThinkSecret (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051219123900.shtml) suggested that Apple was planning on using the Dual Core Low Voltage version of the Yonah processors (1.5GHz and 1.66GHz) in the Intel iBook.

[pdpfilms]

Are there specs posted on the "low voltage" power consumption compared to the dual cores? I'd like to know how much more life one might be able to get with this proc.

[jjmaximum]

Just use something and get them out the door...

[longofest]

I vote for low-voltage. Let an iBook be an iBook, and a Powerbook... err... MacBook Pro be a MacBook Pro. (damn you apple for that name change)

Something to keep in mind: what will Apple use for 12" and 17" models of MacBook Pro when they come out? I'd suspect you'll see the 1.67 core-duo in the 12", and the 2.167 in the 17".

Then again, Apple could stay simple and use the 1.83 in the 12" and the 2.167 in the 17".

My point though is that you have to account for the low-end MacBook Pro's that will come out in a month or two, and the iBooks still have to come in under that. So, my bet is on low-voltage versions.

[arn]

Are there specs posted on the "low voltage" power consumption compared to the dual cores? I'd like to know how much more life one might be able to get with this proc.

not sure how official this is, but found this PDF

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/1122/kaigai225_04.pdf

Intel Core Duo: 31W
Intel Core Solo: 27W
Low Voltage Duo: 15W
Ultra Low Voltage Duo: 9W
Ultra Low Voltage Solo: 5.5W

I think Ultra Low Voltage processors are not out yet. due in April, I believe.

arn

[ibook30]

I say give the ibook as much juice at it can hold!
But it's gotta handle it - as a likely laptop for first time mac buyers- if it's glitchy it makes the whole line look rotten.

[longofest]

not sure how official this is, but found this PDF

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/1122/kaigai225_04.pdf

Intel Core Duo: 31W
Intel Core Solo: 27W
Low Voltage Duo: 15W
Ultra Low Voltage Duo: 9W
Ultra Low Voltage Solo: 5.5W

I think Ultra Low Voltage processors are not out yet. due in April, I believe.

arn

sounds right

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I'll take a 12"/13" MacBook with a low voltage dual 1.5 without optical drive. Imagine the battery life on something like that... :cool: :D

[Kingsly]

For comparison, what is the current draw of the G4's used in the PB's? Perhaps one could get some ballpark figures of the MBP battery life by comparing the two?

[ncbill]

So, the price difference between the dual/solo @ 1.66GHz is only about $30, but could be less when you're purchasing thousands upon thousands.

It would be so much nicer to have a dual in the iBook and Mini.

Wouldn't that help with Rosetta?

[Dr. Dastardly]

Wouldn't they want low volatage for the iBooks. I would think that the people purchasing the "i" line would want a better battery life rather than a bump in processor power.

Probably goes hand in hand with the rumors that the iBooks would be released in April along side the ultra low voltage of the Intel chips that would be released in that month.

[Kimi]

Will the be any difference that you could see in normal use that the 0.2 or what ever would make? I'm not to sure as I've only ever jumped in large numbers with my Windows box, and I'm on my first Mac.

I'm not really fussed what the numbers are in the end as I will be looking for the cheepest note book from the lot of them, and I think it will be the same for many people.

[shawnce]

Price list (Apple is likely getting a better price)...

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

[Chundles]

Price difference between 1.66GHz Core Solo and 1.66GHz Core Duo is about $30.

Those Low Voltage Core Duos cost an arm and a leg though, much more expensive than the regular ones.

I'd love to see 1.66GHz Core Duos in the iBook and Mac mini. Every computer in the line-up would have dual processors - them's some serious bragging rights and if they could keep the iBook price down it would thump anything the PPC manufacturers could come out with at the same price. They're all probably sticking Core Solos in their budget laptops.

[yankeefan24]

So, the price difference between the dual/solo @ 1.66GHz is only about $30, but could be less when you're purchasing thousands upon thousands.

It would be so much nicer to have a dual in the iBook and Mini.

Wouldn't that help with Rosetta?

only a mere $32. If it was a solo with a BTO dual, dual ULV or LV, that would be my dream computer.
Roseta needs more RAM than CPU (but CPU would help). I think if they put duals in there entire lineup would be bragging rights (as mentioned above), but apple gets less of their huge markup (sob).

[longofest]

For comparison, what is the current draw of the G4's used in the PB's? Perhaps one could get some ballpark figures of the MBP battery life by comparing the two?

Wasn't able to find the exact spec sheet of the 7447A's that Apple uses in the Powerbook G4's, but if you look at the following link, you can see that the current G4's run around 30W at 1420 Mhz. So, tack on a few Watts for a few Mhz, and you have what a 1.5Ghz and 1.67 Ghz PowerBook draws.

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC7447A&nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG8653

EDIT: It is possible that Apple simply uses the listed 1420 Mhz model that Freescale has listed, and simply overclocks it. This would of course require more power as stated above, so adjust accordingly

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Those Low Voltage Core Duos cost an arm and a leg though, much more expensive than the regular ones.I don't know, according to the list above, the T2400 (2M L2 cache 1.83 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $294 and the T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $241 and the low voltage version, the L2400 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $316 (and the 1.5 GHz version, even cheaper at $284). Not that big price difference... :)

Can't beat the price of the Core Solo T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) at $209, though, so I suspect that is what's going into the base MacBook and Mac mini...

I know this isn't the prices Apple pay, but the relative price difference shouldn't vary too much... ;)

[nagromme]

I think the iBook name is on the way out, and I don't think Apple will limit themselves to two rigid lines of laptops anymore. "MacBook ______" allows for multiple different products that aren't necessarily in a strict hierarchy. Just like with iPods. There can now be low-end and high-end MacBooks, ultrathin, ultrathick, tablets... whatever the future may call for.

Whatever MacBook becomes the VERY low end will get a single core I think. If Core Solo makes sense for any computer maker, then why not for Apple? But there may be other models with dual cores, below the MacBook Pro.

Same with Mac Mini, I think the low-end will stay single core, but dual models above that would be great.

[trailblazer]

MacBook Pro's ship next week

[mrgreen4242]

When I read about this "update" (can't really call it that since no machines with the lower specs were released) I hoped that it meant they wanted to have a dual core iBook but didn't want to step on the MacBook Pro's toes. Here's my thinking...

Have 2 iBooks, like there is now, only both with a 13" widescreen display and the choice being single or dual core. $1000 and $1300 price points could stay, or hopefully drop $100 or so. The extra $300 could buy you the dual core CPU, a SD (Combo in the lower end model), maybe some RAM, a 'larger' battery (for the extra draw with 2 CPUs), bigger HDD, etc.

However, I'm not sure that ANY Yonah chip could be used in a $1000 machine right now... Is any manufacturer offering a sub-$1k dual core laptop yet? Since the Solo core is so close in price it would seem that if you can't get a Duo for $1050 then you're not going to get a Solo for $999... yet.

[macEfan]

wow, dual core on ibooks? that would be very cool. They would be able to run all the top new apps flawlessly! I wonder if they will change the design of the ibook drastically.

[thejedipunk]

Well as one person pointed out that they are expensive, I would like to see those Low Voltage or Ultra Low Voltage Duos in the iBook. Don't see how that would be possible.

Assuming that Apple will only have one size for the new iBook, I can see them putting in the 1.66 ghz Duo in that sucker. Most likely bumping up the video RAM to 64mb but giving you the option to upgrade it to the max of 128.
Standard features being single layer DVD-R, minimum 60 gig HDD upgradeable to 150 gig. Among other things.

One feature I would really like to see in the new iBook though, is the addition of a dedicated line-in port. Not having one the current iBooks renders GarageBand useless unless you get an iMic. :/

[~Shard~]

With the speed bump to the MacBook Pros, it is more likely that the iBooks could indeed see dual core processors. One of the main factors holding that back initially was simply product differentiation if nothing else. Of course there is always the potential that the low end iBook could get a single core and the high end could get a dual core, but that might almost be too much of a gap between models...

Guess we'll find out in the next month!

[ezekielrage_99]

Well people were surprised when the MacBook Pro was released with an Intel Core Duo not the Pentium M that most people were expecting.

Also we are getting speed bumps with the current line of Macbook Pros, I'm surprised we can't get a BTO 20" Intel iMac with a 2.16Ghz option.

I think for the sake of $30 Apple would be stupid not to put in a Duo Processor in the Intel iBooks (or MacBook).

Apple can still save by not putting faster graphics cards, etc in the Intel iBook because after all it's a consumer product not a pro line product, it doesn't need a few of the features the MacBook Pro has.

[Stridder44]

Low Voltage takes my vote too

[yankeefan24]

Well people were surprised when the MacBook Pro was released with an Intel Core Duo not the Pentium M that most people were expecting.

Also we are getting speed bumps with the current line of Macbook Pros, I'm surprised we can't get a BTO 20" Intel iMac with a 2.16Ghz option.

I think for the sake of $30 Apple would be stupid not to put in a Duo Processor in the Intel iBooks (or MacBook).

Apple can still save by not putting faster graphics cards, etc in the Intel iBook because after all it's a consumer product not a pro line product, it doesn't need a few of the features the MacBook Pro has.

the only reason why they would even think about putting solos in there would be to not hurt sales of the MBP. now that they have upgraded the MBPs, i can see them having the MB at 1.67 GHz solo and another version 1.67 GHz duo. they had to do something with all those 1.67 duos:D .

[Josh396]

Well I don't really need a laptop but there is no way I can resist a 1.5 Ghz Duo iBook. I wouldn't need speed but I would love the dual core just for Rosetta and a little more future proofing. If those numbers are right that Arn found (he's never wrong, right?;) ) then it should get great battery life. Add a 64 MB (please 128 MB Apple) X1300 and a baseline 60 GB HD and I'll be in heaven. Oh yeah, price it around $1,000 too.

[ezekielrage_99]

Does this also mean that we just might be seeing an Intel Core Duo pop up in an Intel Mac Mini?

[~Shard~]

Does this also mean that we just might be seeing an Intel Core Duo pop up in an Intel Mac Mini?

Personally, I think that is less likely, but I of course wouldn't rule it out. My feeling though is that Apple is going to use the Core Solo for something, and the Mac mini is the most logical choice. We'll find out in a month or 2 regardless.... :cool:

[Stella]

A dual core iBook would just be absolutely excellent. Apple should take a slight hit on profits... it would be a killer machine.

[muffinman]

cool. i wonder if they will be thinner...

[macEfan]

cool. i wonder if they will be thinner...
I doubt it, if it was much thinner, you could snap it in half :D
I mean, 1" seems like just about the perfect thicknes for a consumer notebook.

[w_parietti22]

Ultra-Low Voltage in iTab??? :D

[splintah]

didn't steve say something about a very sexy, very portable women thing kind of ibook ?

that sounds a lot like ulv

[ezekielrage_99]

the only reason why they would even think about putting solos in there would be to not hurt sales of the MBP. now that they have upgraded the MBPs, i can see them having the MB at 1.67 GHz solo and another version 1.67 GHz duo. they had to do something with all those 1.67 duos:D .

Yeah I totally agree with you with the point that it could hurt MacBook Pro sales with another line with Duos in it, however look at the current PowerBooks and iBooks.

12" iBook - G4 1.33GHz
14" iBook - G4 1.42GHz
12" PowerBook - G4 1.5Ghz
15" PowerBook - G4 1.5/1.67GHz
17" PowerBook - G4 1.67Ghz

There's very little in the Processor speed difference (300Mhz between the top and bottom G4s), but they distinguish the Pro and Consumer line with features (backlight keyboard), graphic, Hard Disk (Speed/Size), inputs/outputs, and so on.

But then again it could be Apple buying up a whole heap of 1.67GHz Duo and then getting a better deal on the faster processors, then leaving the 1.67Ghz processors for another unreleased future Intel Line of Apple products.

[yankeefan24]

I doubt it, if it was much thinner, you could snap it in half :D
I mean, 1" seems like just about the perfect thicknes for a consumer notebook.

you could probably snap a nano, but that didn't stop them. We will see a pencil thin iBook April 1. :D ;)

[progect]

hello everybody, newbie to the forums but been a Macrumors regular for years now.

anybody else having difficulty actually selecting a mac book pro in the online store?

I'm on campus and I've tried it on a mac and pc...it's a no go. Anyway, I just purchased a macbook pro last week! crossing my fingers on the rev. a!

[t^3]

I think you guys have forgotten about the Celeron line. Take a look at their prices ($86-134), much more reasonable for value-minded machines like the iBook and Mac mini. The low-voltage CPU's cost MORE than the regular voltage CPU's, so why in the world would Apple put them in a less expensive Mac?

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/intel_mobile_roadmap_q1_06/

"The Core Solo will form the basis for the next generation of Celeron M chips, which are expected to retain the old-style branding. The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are all 65nm parts and clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively. There's also a Low-Voltage 65nm Celeron M, the 423, in the works. It's clocked at 1.06GHz. All four chips use a 533MHz FSB."

[MacQuest]

...I think if they put duals in there entire lineup that would [give them] bragging rights (as mentioned above), but apple gets less of their huge markup (sob).

Apple will still make huge profit from their entire MacBook Pro line, iPod's, and other products and services.

Hopefully they'll decide to "take a hit" on the consumer MacBooks' initial profit margin and offer the low end 1.66Ghz Core Duo[s], then make up their "lost" front end profits in the back end through large volume sales increasing their visibility, marketshare, and of course giving them those "bragging" rights.

[progect]

I think you guys have forgotten about the Celeron line. Take a look at their prices ($86-134), much more reasonable for value-minded machines like the iBook and Mac mini. The low-voltage CPU's cost MORE than the regular voltage CPU's, so why in the world would Apple put them in a less expensive Mac?

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/intel_mobile_roadmap_q1_06/

"The Core Solo will form the basis for the next generation of Celeron M chips, which are expected to retain the old-style branding. The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are all 65nm parts and clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively. There's also a Low-Voltage 65nm Celeron M, the 423, in the works. It's clocked at 1.06GHz. All four chips use a 533MHz FSB."

Oh my god. Apple using Celeron? I never thought of that and I feel a great emptiness now.

[ezekielrage_99]

Personally, I think that is less likely, but I of course wouldn't rule it out. My feeling though is that Apple is going to use the Core Solo for something, and the Mac mini is the most logical choice. We'll find out in a month or 2 regardless.... :cool:

Still Apple are the masters of deception when it comes to release cool new stuff (speed bumps already on the MacBook Pro), I wont really be surprised if they put Intel Duos in all there Mac Mini, iBook, MacBook Pro and iMac lines.

Apple are using the same processors as other computer companies like Dell, HP, Compaq, etc, and they still need a way to distinguish themselves apart from the competition in reguards to power/performance/value/features to entise new people to buy Apple products along with the exsisting Apple mob to upgrade to Intel. They can do it with putting a faster Intel processor in the computers for better performance/value, anyway April we will find out.

[lordmac]

Price difference between 1.66GHz Core Solo and 1.66GHz Core Duo is about $30.

Those Low Voltage Core Duos cost an arm and a leg though, much more expensive than the regular ones.

I'd love to see 1.66GHz Core Duos in the iBook and Mac mini. Every computer in the line-up would have dual processors - them's some serious bragging rights and if they could keep the iBook price down it would thump anything the PPC manufacturers could come out with at the same price. They're all probably sticking Core Solos in their budget laptops.

Its not just bragging right but also would heavily encourage software makers to code all the there stuff multithreaded. Which would then make the mac side of things feel insanely faster then the pc side of things as most pc based stuff is still single threaded. Apple already has a huge lead when i comes to how much of their software already takes advantage of multi processors/cores, over the windows world so why no go one step further and get an even bigger lead.

[Object-X]

So, a dual core iBook would mean a dual core Mini! Bring it!

[trans3062]

I wonder how current iBooks sales are going now that Intel chips are in use?

Before Apple would make a change and unless you were a die-hard, you might have missed it. Now I see the "Image the Possibilities" ad all the time on TV. I can see holding off on updating the PowerMac until the pro apps are available but anything that housed a G4 should be updated as soon as possible.

I know that I would not recommend the Mini, iBooks, or PowerBooks (G4) to anyone at this time.

[t^3]

Oh my god. Apple using Celeron? I never thought of that and I feel a great emptiness now.
I know it sounds bad, but look at the specs for the Celeron - it really isn't that bad. The Celeron is there to make the Pentium/Core line of CPU's look better, and thus, priced higher. The differences aren't that significant. People who want more should just get something more expensive, or it may even be possible to upgrade a Celeron-based Mac with a Core Duo. The current Pentium M and Celeron M are pin-compatible.

[mrgreen4242]

I can see them being able to make money on a Core Duo at the $1300 price range (current 14" iBook), with the smaller (13") screen, slower GPU $ less VRAM... they are selling the 1.83ghz Duo w/ 512 RAM, 80gb HDD, and a 128mb VRAM x1300 for $2000.

Put in a 1.63ghz Duo, x700 w/ 64mb RAM and the smaller screen, cheaper casing (plastic vs. aluminum), no expansion slot, etc and they must be able to get it down $700... getting the next $300 without going to a "standard" Pentium M chip will be tough tho.

Still, I'd pay $1300 for a machine like that (13" widescreen, 1.63ghz Duo, 512mb RAM - up to 1.5gb, 60gb HDD - up to 80gb, x700 w/ 64mb VRAM, SD, AE, BT) in a heartbeat... Not sure I'd pay $1000 for a similar system with a Core Solo, though... would be worth waiting for the Duo drop in price.

[powerbook911]

If Apple makes a 13-inch widescreen about these specs:

$1300
Core Duo
mini-DVI output supporting up to 23-inch cinema

I will sale my Powerbook and iMac Core Duo. Pocket some cash too. :) Furthermore, if they offered a $600 Mac Mini, with Core Duo I'd sale the iMac.

My hope would be that they'd offer a 7200 RPM hard drive option.

[Aqua Structure]

Apple are using the same processors as other computer companies like Dell, HP, Compaq, etc, and they still need a way to distinguish themselves apart from the competition in reguards to power/performance/value/features to entise new people to buy Apple products along with the exsisting Apple mob to upgrade to Intel. They can do it with putting a faster Intel processor in the computers for better performance/value, anyway April we will find out.
True, although Mac OS is quite a nice distinction already for the new buyers.

[QCassidy352]

If Apple makes a 13-inch widescreen about these specs:

$1300
Core Duo
mini-DVI output supporting up to 23-inch cinema

Yeah, that's what I'm waiting on too. They can call it a powerbook, ibook, macbook, macbook pro, or poweri pro for all I care; I just want to see it.

There was a rumor that the 12" PB would not be replaced, and if that's true then the intel ibook really need DVI. Personally, I'm betting on a core duo @ 1.67 in a 12/13" macbook pro and core solo @ 1.67 in the ibook.

[gnasher729]

T1300 (Single) - 1.66GHz
T2300 (Dual) - 1.66GHz
T2400 (Dual) - 1.83GHz - MacBook Pro 1.83GHz
T2500 (Dual) - 2.00GHz - MacBook Pro 2.00GHz
T2600 (Dual) - 2.16GHz - MacBook Pro BTO

Low Voltage Versions
L2300 (Dual) - 1.5GHz
L2400 (Dual) - 1.66GHz


T1300 (Single) - 1.66GHz costs $209
T2300 (Dual) - 1.66GHz costs $241
T2400 (Dual) - 1.83GHz - MacBook Pro 1.83GHz costs $294
T2500 (Dual) - 2.00GHz - MacBook Pro 2.00GHz costs $423
T2600 (Dual) - 2.16GHz - MacBook Pro BTO costs $637

Low Voltage Versions
L2300 (Dual) - 1.5GHz costs $284
L2400 (Dual) - 1.66GHz costs $316

Not mentioned in the article:
Celeron M - $86 to $134 for 1.3 to 1.6 GHz, 1MB Cache
ULV Celeron M - $144 to $161 for 1 GHz, 512K-1MB Cache

Add about 40% to these prices; that is what they will cost a customer. Apple is not exactly known to be a charitable organisation, so whatever they will use, we will pay for it. That rules out some of these chips in a $999 iBook.

[guez]

Whatever MacBook becomes the VERY low end will get a single core I think. If Core Solo makes sense for any computer maker, then why not for Apple?


Perhaps because most computer makers do not have to emulate the G4 for most of their non-OEM apps.

[gnasher729]

Oh my god. Apple using Celeron? I never thought of that and I feel a great emptiness now.

Celeron M != Celeron.

Celeron M is Core Solo, with 1 MB L2 Cache instead of 2 MB, some minor optimisations in the core missing, and faster L2 cache. It will run at almost the same speed, at major savings in cost.

Core Solo is so expensive because it is a Core Duo gone wrong; a chip where one of the two cores doesn't work properly and had to be turned off. These chips are then recycled as Core Solo. That is also the reason why the L2 cache on Core Solo is slower than on Celeron M: Its cache is designed to be shared between two cores, which makes it slower. Unfortunately, the second core isn't there so the ability to share the cache is wasted.

[sartinsauce]

This whole thing is beginning to remind me of the middle of 2005. I can just about hear the cries now...


"New ibooks next Tuesday..."


:D

[gnasher729]

However, I'm not sure that ANY Yonah chip could be used in a $1000 machine right now... Is any manufacturer offering a sub-$1k dual core laptop yet? Since the Solo core is so close in price it would seem that if you can't get a Duo for $1050 then you're not going to get a Solo for $999... yet.

Dell Inspiron 1705 with 1.66GHz Core Duo; it is $1199 in their price list; which goes up by $149 for Windows XP (Dell recommended), $49 for Bluetooth (included in the iBooks), and they make you fight for $250 (mail-in rebate, hoping you are one of the suckers who give up the fight), which makes it $1649. I could have added the cost that you need to get the software up to MacBook Pro standards (starting with $79 for anti-virus software), but I didn't want to hurt their feelings too much...

[dontmatter]

I bet "ibooks" come in as single core (bread and butter... and price difference sounds small relative to price of book, but is big relative to the margin on the things). Cheap, profitable.

Then, here's the great part. New line, low or ultra-low chips, of something like macbook slim's. Sexier, longer life, plenty of performance, nice middle ground in price.

These days, it doesn't make sense to have three lines of desktops and two of notebooks, should be the other way around.

this scheme would be great products, solid product differintation, and profits all around. dual cores would cut into PB sales. Single cores keep profits up by encouraging PB sales (two cores sounds like twice as fast, plus extra hz), while simultaneously increasing margins on the ibooks.

can't lose.

[plinden]

Oh my god. Apple using Celeron? I never thought of that and I feel a great emptiness now.
Don't knock Celeron Ms. They are fine CPUs, as good performance-wise as similarly clocked Pentium Ms. They just don't have as good a battery life.

The Celeron Ms are being replaced by the Core Solos. So there won't be any Macs with Celeron Ms anyway, but just remember that the Core Solos are the current version of Celeron Ms.

However, Celerons without the M are totally different story. There's nothing good to say about them (a few years ago they were good for overclocking though) - they were Intel's way of soaking up cash from noobs who didn't know the difference.

[snowmen]

If iBook comes with Core Duo, then Mac Mini must come with Core Duo as well (Don't think Appl will buy Core Solo JUST for Mac Mini)

I think, we really have to think about iBook as a portable Mac Mini on spec...
So... from intel price list, I saw T2300 w/ Intel 945 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG cost $306 (even though iMac Core Duo use GM which is $4 extra) add bluetooth, change wireless, add HD/RAM... It's hard to control the price under $500. based on the price differet between a set and just a CPU is about $60, I'll also believe the Celeron M will be put into Mac Mini and iBook. 1.6Ghz Celeron M should be just suitable for Mac Mini/iBook...

[ezekielrage_99]

True, although Mac OS is quite a nice distinction already for the new buyers.

Yeah Mac OSX and iLife is a big distinction but most end users who haven't had much Apple exposure will still just look at the overall hardware, processor specs and ticket price and make a judgement based upon that.

Like it or not Apple will still have to make the distinction for the user on an inital "so what's in a Mac?" from a hardware POV to boost sales.

Otherwise there are plenty users out there who will definantly buy a Dell, HP or Compaq just on the basis of hardware specs and ticket price rather than which product has the best mix of value for money, components, software and other various features (which is Apple;)).

[Meemoo]

If Apple doesn't put 1.5GHz Duos in the iBook I'd be suprised.

I think Apple should stay as far away from Celeron as possible.

[MacQuest]

Ultra-Low Voltage in iTab??? :D

Oh, COME ON!!!! :rolleyes:

It would surely be called a "MacPad". ;)

It would definately have a LV or possibly a ULV processor as well. :D

[maxigalaxy]

MacBook Mini...........low voltage dual
MacBook.................dual
MacbookPro.............dual+specs
:D

[MacinDoc]

I don't know, according to the list above, the T2400 (2M L2 cache 1.83 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $294 and the T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $241 and the low voltage version, the L2400 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) is $316 (and the 1.5 GHz version, even cheaper at $284). Not that big price difference... :)

Can't beat the price of the Core Solo T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) at $209, though, so I suspect that is what's going into the base MacBook and Mac mini...

I know this isn't the prices Apple pay, but the relative price difference shouldn't vary too much... ;)
So, the difference between Core Solo and Core Duo at 1.66 Ghz is $32, and you don't think the extra core is worth that amount?

Now, for a budget choice to keep the price below $1000, can any of you who are bemoaning the possible choice of Celeron M as opposed to the Core Solo tell me what the difference is between these processors, aside from the 2 MB cache the Core Solo has, compared to 1 MB for the new Celeron Ms? I had read that the architecture of the each core of the Core chips was almost the same as the architecture of a Celeron M.

As far as the LV Core Duo chips go, I would love to see them in the iBooks, but I'm worried about the price difference.

I'm still hoping for Core Duo in all of Apple's consumer Macs, including the iBook and Mac Mini at 1.66 GHz, as I have suggested since the beginning of these debates. It sends a strong message to developers that no matter what apps they are developing, consumer or pro, they had better make sure that they are multi-threaded, since all new Macs will have multiple processing units.

IMO, compared to either the Core Duo or the Celeron M, the Core Solo just doesn't have enough bang for the buck. Either go for performance, and use the Duo, or go for the entry-level price, and use the Celeron M. The Core Solo is the best of neither world.

[t^3]

As far as features, the Celeron M simply doesn't support the SpeedStep technology, which lowers the CPU speed when it isn't under load. This makes battery life a little lower compared to a Pentium M or Core Duo/Solo. As mentioned, Celeron M has less L2 cache, and a slower bus speed, but otherwise, a Celeron M is exactly IDENTICAL to a Pentium M or Core Solo based on the same micro-architecture.

So, in a nutshell, Celeron M + SpeedStep + more L2 cache + faster bus = Pentium M/Core Solo. Faster bus may not even apply sometimes since there are some Pentium M's with the same bus speed. I mention Pentium M/Core Solo because the Pentium M is what the current Celeron M is based on (Dothan architecture), and the Core Duo/Solo is of course based on the Yonah architecture.

Now, as Intel introduces more features, like Virtualization Technology (running multiple OS's at the same time), these may or may not find their way into the Celeron M, but will most likely be included in the Core CPU's.

[MacinDoc]

As far as features, the Celeron M simply doesn't support the SpeedStep technology, which lowers the CPU speed when it isn't under load. This makes battery life a little lower compared to a Pentium M or Core Duo/Solo. As mentioned, Celeron M has less L2 cache, and a slower bus speed, but otherwise, a Celeron M is exactly IDENTICAL to a Pentium M or Core Solo based on the same micro-architecture.

So, in a nutshell, Celeron M + SpeedStep + more L2 cache + faster bus = Pentium M/Core Solo. Faster bus may not even apply sometimes since there are some Pentium M's with the same bus speed. I mention Pentium M/Core Solo because the Pentium M is what the current Celeron M is based on (Dothan architecture), and the Core Duo/Solo is of course based on the Yonah architecture.

Now, as Intel introduces more features, like Virtualization Technology (running multiple OS's at the same time), these may or may not find their way into the Celeron M, but will most likely be included in the Core CPU's.
I thought I had read that the new Celeron M does support SpeedStep - I will look for a quote. Edit: it appears that it supports power-optimized system bus, core stepping and mobile voltage positioning, but not SpeedStep, which apparently allows for one slightly deeper level of sleep.

And yes, I will concede that the bus speed is faster on the Core chips, but how much that difference will mean in the real world is debatable.

As far as Virtualization Technology is concerned, I don't think that will be an issue for iBooks - they won't have the processing power for it anyway, as entry-level consumer laptops.

[MacMyDay]

The problem Apple had with the iBook was that it was too similar to the 12" PowerBook, yet there was a £500 price difference. I suspect the renamed iBook (remember, they want "Mac" in the title of them all) will be smaller versions with longer battery life for the student and general work, whereas the Macbook Pro will be for the high-end user (obviously!) and offer larger screen size, more power and less battery time. I'd be surprised if there is a 12" Macbook Pro - it will just be a variation of an iBook instead.

[atari]

I think the iBook name is on the way out, and I don't think Apple will limit themselves to two rigid lines of laptops anymore. "MacBook ______" allows for multiple different products that aren't necessarily in a strict hierarchy. Just like with iPods. There can now be low-end and high-end MacBooks, ultrathin, ultrathick, tablets... whatever the future may call for.

Whatever MacBook becomes the VERY low end will get a single core I think. If Core Solo makes sense for any computer maker, then why not for Apple? But there may be other models with dual cores, below the MacBook Pro.

Same with Mac Mini, I think the low-end will stay single core, but dual models above that would be great.

You beat me to it; makes a lot of sense, here´s an example:
MacBook "Ultra Portable" = Ultra Low Voltage Dual
MacBook "El Cheapo" = Single Core Yonah
MacBook "Thin" = Low Voltage Dual
MacBook = Dual Core Yonah

[mdavey]

Apple are using the same processors as other computer companies like Dell, HP, Compaq, etc, and they still need a way to distinguish themselves apart from the competition in reguards to power/performance/value/features to entise new people to buy Apple products along with the exsisting Apple mob to upgrade to Intel. They can do it with putting a faster Intel processor in the computers for better performance/value

It also makes it harder to compare relative value of Apple kit with other brands if Apple is using Core Duo and others continue to use Celeron.

Not sure I'd pay $1000 for a similar system with a Core Solo, though... would be worth waiting for the Duo drop in price.

That's the problem, isn't it? If Apple announce an Intel Mac mini or iBook (MacBook) available only as a Core Solo, there will be a whole bunch of Mac enthusiasts who will simply wait for Apple to bump them to Core Duo. More likely that Apple will announce both low-end Mac minis and iBooks with Core Solo and high-end models with Core Duo.

[ScottB]

If Apple doesn't put 1.5GHz Duos in the iBook I'd be suprised.
I think Apple should stay as far away from Celeron as possible.
I agree (about duos), now that theres space for an decent upgrade they should use it, or at least give an option of battery life or performance just in time for the birthday!

[ScottB]

The problem Apple had with the iBook was that it was too similar to the 12" PowerBook, yet there was a £500 price difference. I suspect the renamed iBook (remember, they want "Mac" in the title of them all) will be smaller versions with longer battery life for the student and general work, whereas the Macbook Pro will be for the high-end user (obviously!) and offer larger screen size, more power and less battery time. I'd be surprised if there is a 12" Macbook Pro - it will just be a variation of an iBook instead.
I see how that could work, and thats what I would have said before this thread. But after reading it I'm expecting three lines of notebooks. One middle line to replace the 12" Powerbook and the 14" iBook. Probably way off mind, I just hope that theres a model I can afford with a duo.

[oober_freak]

I think you guys have forgotten about the Celeron line. Take a look at their prices ($86-134), much more reasonable for value-minded machines like the iBook and Mac mini. The low-voltage CPU's cost MORE than the regular voltage CPU's, so why in the world would Apple put them in a less expensive Mac?

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/16/intel_mobile_roadmap_q1_06/

"The Core Solo will form the basis for the next generation of Celeron M chips, which are expected to retain the old-style branding. The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are all 65nm parts and clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively. There's also a Low-Voltage 65nm Celeron M, the 423, in the works. It's clocked at 1.06GHz. All four chips use a 533MHz FSB."

Do you know the battery life that one gets with the Celeron M? They don't have the sidestep technology which is present in the pentium M/Yonahs.. Apple will do anything but limit the battery life of the ibook to 1 hour. Yes, one of my friends has a celeron M laptop and the battery lasts for maximum 2 hours even when he is just writing stuff!

[aegisdesign]

Can't beat the price of the Core Solo T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) at $209, though, so I suspect that is what's going into the base MacBook and Mac mini...

Yes you can. The Celeron M 1.6 is $134

Why do they have to use Core in everything?

[gnasher729]

And yes, I will concede that the bus speed is faster on the Core chips, but how much that difference will mean in the real world is debatable.

On the other hand, the L2 cache is faster on the Celeron (10 cycle instead of 14 cycle). Again, hard to say how much difference that makes.

[gnasher729]

Do you know the battery life that one gets with the Celeron M? They don't have the sidestep technology which is present in the pentium M/Yonahs.. Apple will do anything but limit the battery life of the ibook to 1 hour. Yes, one of my friends has a celeron M laptop and the battery lasts for maximum 2 hours even when he is just writing stuff!

Since your friend doesn't have a Macintosh laptop with a Celeron M, this doesn't mean anything at all.

[godbout]

Yes you can. The Celeron M 1.6 is $134

Why do they have to use Core in everything?

I think that apple will want to put "Core" in everything simply for the marketing. Everyone considers the "Core" chips the next generation of moble CPUs and this is why apple moved to intel in the first place right? ;) Apple did not get up there and say "What intel has now is better than what we are using" they said "what intel will be making in the future..." so simply from a marketing perspective I think that they will use the "new tech". Also, were we promised more power per watt :rolleyes: I doubt that they will be able to go up on stage with a celeron M and show all those pretty graphs (could be wrong). (By the way I am a lab geek that has very little concept of marketing ;) )

[godbout]

Well while I am at it I want to throw out what I think the MacBooks specs will be:

Low end:
13" WS (nice and bright, higher pixel density)
Core solo 1.66
512MB RAM
x1400 mobility (64MB)
60 GB SATA HD (5400 RPM)
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor
Mini DVI out
No modem (yeah I said it ;) )

Maybe list:
Optical Audio in
iSight
Front Row (ie IR sensor/Remote)...

$1199 USD (would they dare raise the price?)

High End
13" WS (Same as Above)
Core Duo 1.66
512 MB RAM
x1400 mobility (128MB)
80 GB SATA HD (5400 RPM)
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor
Mini DVI out
No modem

Maybe list:
Optical Audio in
iSight
Front Row (ie IR sensor/Remote)...

$1499 USD

New form factor that lessens the gap between old iBook and PB in thickness etc (1" thick 4ish lbs) and because of this they don't release a MBP 13" the high end statisfies the need of the ultra portable power user. What do you think... am I hopped up on "goof balls"? I guess only time will tell...

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

So, the difference between Core Solo and Core Duo at 1.66 Ghz is $32, and you don't think the extra core is worth that amount?I think the price is worth it, but I'm not sure Apple will... I would love the low voltage duos (or even the slowest regular duos), but I fear that Apple will go for the cheapest option for the consumer machines, MacBook and Mac mini... :(

Oh, how I hope Apple will surprise me, in a positive way... ;)

[jacobj]

I think the price is worth it, but I'm not sure Apple will... I would love the low voltage duos (or even the slowest regular duos), but I fear that Apple will go for the cheapest option for the consumer machines, MacBook and Mac mini... :(

Oh, how I hope Apple will surprise me, in a positive way... ;)

I have been arguing that Apple would not put Dual Cores in the iBook replacement because it brings it too close to the MBP. Having given it a little more thought I believe that Apple will introduce a 3rd member to the notebook lineup. I think that we will see an ultra-low-end notebook with single cores and a mid-price model with the low end core duos without the GPU, keyboard, screen etc in the mid-price model.

Then will we see a gaming machine?

[syklee26]

$32 more profit in 100,000 computer means 3.2 million dollars. it means quite a lot for Apple.


I think if Apple indeed goes with duo with ibooks, the price will start at $1499. that makes perfect sense as 1.83 and 2.0 has $500 difference. 1.67 at $1499 with skimpier features...such as 60gb HD, 64mb vRam, 1280x768 max resolution.

and $999 will be core solo processor.

[gnasher729]

$32 more profit in 100,000 computer means 3.2 million dollars. it means quite a lot for Apple.


I think if Apple indeed goes with duo with ibooks, the price will start at $1499. that makes perfect sense as 1.83 and 2.0 has $500 difference. 1.67 at $1499 with skimpier features...such as 60gb HD, 64mb vRam, 1280x768 max resolution.

and $999 will be core solo processor.

If Apple ships an iBook with a core solo processor, I can tell you where they can stick it.

[gnasher729]

I think that apple will want to put "Core" in everything simply for the marketing.

They'll have to rename "Celeron M" to "Core Mini" then. If you think it is a bad idea, it would be a worse idea to ship anything with a Core Solo processor.

[godbout]

They'll have to rename "Celeron M" to "Core Mini" then. If you think it is a bad idea, it would be a worse idea to ship anything with a Core Solo processor.

I don't disagree in principle (although the core solo is not that bad, at least its better on battery). It is just that I think that they will not release an intel mac with anything but the "new intel chips" and I don't think that they will count Celeron M's as being new (even thought they are now built 65nm etc?). Anyways, count on NOT seeing Celeron M on any apple box. (of course just MHO)

[gekko513]

Why is there only one Core Solo model in the price list. I think it misses some models.

I've yet to see a fabrication process that consistenly yields processors capable of running at the same frequency. There will be produced Core Solos at different speeds and I don't think Intel intends to throw them away.

T1100 (Single) - 1.33GHz
T1200 (Single) - 1.5GHz
T1300 (Single) - 1.66GHz
T1400 (Single) - 1.83GHz

[jacobj]

Why is there only one Core Solo model in the price list. I think it misses some models.

I've yet to see a fabrication process that consistenly yields processors capable of running at the same frequency. There will be produced Core Solos at different speeds and I don't think Intel intends to throw them away.

T1100 (Single) - 1.33GHz
T1200 (Single) - 1.5GHz
T1300 (Single) - 1.66GHz
T1400 (Single) - 1.83GHz

and i think that there will be an apple notebook with them in..apple needs to introduce an macbook mini ;).. i.e. they need to compete at the really low end... SJ wasn't wrong in his predictions about the laptops..more and more people are getting them as their main machines and the likes of Dell are offering them cheaply with low specs for those that don't want to pay too much.. Apple must compete.. before the mac mini i would have understood people saying that this will never happen..i think apple has changed

[Xephian]

It would be nice to see everything dual core and higher.

[kadajawi]

Hm, I think there will be only one Core Solo... I'd say Core Solos are processors where one of the processors is defective, so they deactivate that one. And somehow I doubt that the remaining CPU would be as good as a 2,16 GHz. Also I think it makes sense in the line up, the Core Solo is placed as the cheapest option.

I would say there will be a MacBook (no iBook anymore), following the iBook, and it will be a 1,66 GHz Core Solo in the basic version and 1,66 GHz Core Duo as an option.
The 17" MacBook Pro would have a 2 GHz at minimum and a 2,16 GHz at max., the 12" one will have the low voltage ones, 1.5 for basic version, better one 1,66 GHz. Maybe make low voltage an option on MacBook and MacBook Pro 15".

I'd say that Apple would like to differenciate between MacBook and MacBook Pro, also in CPU speed. I don't think the Core Solo would be much slower than the Core Duo, I'd say for the cheapest box its ok to use the slowest CPU.

And the Mac Mini... as much as I would love to see a 2,16 GHz Core Duo in it... ;) 2 variants: Core Solo 1,66 for the basic version, Core Duo 1,66 for the better one. But that also depends on the jobs it will have to do... maybe it will require a more powerful CPU.

Btw.: Sure the people were expecting Pentium Ms for the MacBook Pro? It was well known that Intels dualcore Pentium M follow up codenamed Yonah was expected for the beginning of the new year. I'd say at least it has been expected to have a Yonah, if not its follow up.

[jacobj]

It would be nice to see everything dual core and higher.

but what about those that cannot afford them? $32 dollars on CPU, $15 on HD, $40 on GPU, $50 on extensibility, $40 RAM, $100 on display, $20 on battery, $10 on keyboard etc, etc.. it all adds up to a cheap machine for the low end of the market.

[milo]

$32 more profit in 100,000 computer means 3.2 million dollars. it means quite a lot for Apple.

It will mean zero to them if they ship the core solo and nobody buys it because it runs like crap.

Cheaper manufacturing costs only pay off if you can sell the machines.

[gnasher729]

Hm, I think there will be only one Core Solo... I'd say Core Solos are processors where one of the processors is defective, so they deactivate that one. And somehow I doubt that the remaining CPU would be as good as a 2,16 GHz. Also I think it makes sense in the line up, the Core Solo is placed as the cheapest option.

Just in case nobody has posted this yet: Core Solo has about the same performance as Celeron M, for more than twice the price. It also has about the same price as Core Duo, for half the performance. In other words, nobody except Dell would ever put that chip into any computer.

[jacobj]

It will mean zero to them if they ship the core solo and nobody buys it because it runs like crap.

Cheaper manufacturing costs only pay off if you can sell the machines.

see my previous post... the CPU is one element. Apple have always built well balanced machines and the better the CPU the better everything else has to be.. because it does not appeal to you does not appeal to others. the mac mini holds no interest for me and yet it sells.

[gnasher729]

Why is there only one Core Solo model in the price list. I think it misses some models.

Because Core Solo is the garbage that falls out from the Core Duo production.

Each and every Core Solo chip is a Core Duo that doesn't work properly. One of the cores is broken. If one of the cores is broken, chances are good that the other core isn't capable of running very fast either. And Intel will try their very very best not to produce too many Core Solos, because each one is one lost sale of a Core Duo. There is only one speed, because there are not many of them anyway, and no market for different speeds.

[jefhatfield]

I'll take a 12"/13" MacBook with a low voltage dual 1.5 without optical drive. Imagine the battery life on something like that... :cool: :D


of course, this would mean a small external optical drive like in many pc laptops of this variety...not really bad, but an extra item to lug around

the lcd screen sucks up battery life, too

a core solo ulv would work fine with ibook with optical drive built in and satisfy the target market...a core duo of some sort could be an upgrade option for the top of the line ibook i suppose

[jacobj]

Just in case nobody has posted this yet: Core Solo has about the same performance as Celeron M, for more than twice the price. It also has about the same price as Core Duo, for half the performance. In other words, nobody except Dell would ever put that chip into any computer.

it's floating point performance is considerably better than a Celeron M.

[jefhatfield]

It will mean zero to them if they ship the core solo and nobody buys it because it runs like crap.

Cheaper manufacturing costs only pay off if you can sell the machines.

ever heard of dell, or microsoft? ;)

but it's not apple's style to cut many corners....sure they cut some here and there but still nothing like most pc companies

pc companies that don't cut corners are alien and sony, but then again, they are not priced very modestly, either...and are not market top sellers...and they still run windows, the number one target in the computer world

[mrgreen4242]

:SNIP:

$1199 USD (would they dare raise the price?)
:SNIP:

I don't think so. With the mini they have shown their commitment to having a lower cost product line. They have a high/overprice model with the MacBook Pro. The iMac is actually pretty cheap for what you get. The iBook (or MacBook) is going to stay cheap. I betting on the same $999/1299 price points, or perhaps an even lower $799-899/1099-1199 rangem if they decide to go with non-Yonah chips.

[gnasher729]

it's floating point performance is considerably better than a Celeron M.

And its cache is considerably slower. And of course fp performance is half that of Core Duo which costs ten percent more.

[Mr. Mister]

It's possible that they'll take a loss on the iBook and offer it for very cheap to compete with Dell entry-level laptops, and get more new computer users and switchers over to the Mac side.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

of course, this would mean a small external optical drive like in many pc laptops of this variety...not really bad, but an extra item to lug aroundI find that I rarely use the internal combo drive on my 12" iBook, ever, home or away... and my external DVD-burner stays put at home, all the time... ;)

I prefer the external for most things, especially for ripping CDs after an accident with a piece of a CD that broke off inside my internal drive... try getting that out of a slot-loading drive... :mad:

So, I'm not thinking of the battery it consumes when I want to exclude the optical drive, but first and foremost the form factor. The extra space could be used for a bigger (capacity) battery and/or to reduce the size (ie. thickness) of the MacBook, compared to the iBook... :)

I wouldn't miss an optical drive for a second... if you want to exchange data and, for some reason must do that a place where there's no network (wired/wireless) and the other part don't have Bluetooth, get a small USB thumbdrive... ;)

[Meemoo]

Why wouldn't they just use the Core Solo as default and have Core Duo as an upgradable option?

That would be ingenious since consumers could add on the Core Duo then weigh the cost of buying a MacBook and upgrading versus the cost of getting a MacBook Pro...
Just like people who start to buy a mac mini, then add the options they want only to end up buying an iMac.

[AidenShaw]

If one of the cores is broken, chances are good that the other core isn't capable of running very fast either.
"Broken" usually means a specific defect - for example a contaminant or flaw in the wafer.

"Speed binning" is due to more subtle issues - like a few atoms missing here or there.

Do you have any evidence that a catastrophic defect in one area of the wafer will affect atomic alignment in far-away areas of the wafer?

I would suspect that Intel just decided to downclock all the Solos to the bottom of the range - regardless of how fast the surviving CPU could actually run.

__________________

Ten or twelve years ago I was visiting a CPU production facility where they were making CPUs using the 350 nm process (cutting edge for that time).

On the topic of "defects" there was a display which said that if one increased the size of the chip to the size of the island of Great Britain - a defect the size of a manhole cover could cause the chip to be rejected.

On a 65 nm process, I wonder if the defect would be the size of a salad plate?

[milo]

see my previous post... the CPU is one element. Apple have always built well balanced machines and the better the CPU the better everything else has to be.. because it does not appeal to you does not appeal to others. the mac mini holds no interest for me and yet it sells.

It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of value.

If they ship a solo (or generally single core) laptop, it shouldn't cost more than about $750. If apple ships a $1299 ibook, it needs dual core to be competitive. How many solo machines do you think they would sell at $1299 if there's a macbook with duo for $1499? Or imac at $1299??

People won't settle for HALF the processing power for a price that's only 10-20% lower. People will settle for poor performance in a $499 box, they won't in a $1299 box.

[QUOTE=jefhatfield]ever heard of dell, or microsoft? ;) QUOTE]

Yeah, so far, Dell hasn't announced any Solo machines. In general, they give you more hardwrae for the money than Apple does. If Apple ships a core solo laptop, you don't think Dell will have a Core duo box for the same price?

[jacobj]

It's not a question of opinion, it's a question of value.



I completely agree, which is why we WILL see a third notebook in the Apple lineup... in April shipping in October ;)

[ImAlwaysRight]

I had a 20" iMac G5 2.0GHz that I used for work, but then developed a need to make presentations around campus. So I sold the iMac and was able to buy a projector + Mac Mini 1.5GHz Superdrive for the same amount of cash.

I will buy a MacBook 13" (formerly iBook) if it comes with a dual core processor for under $1K, or possibly an Intel Mac Mini if it comes with dual core. If either iBook/MacBook or Mac Mini come with single core, I'm just gonna keep the G4 Mac Mini I got.

I think Apple's move to bump up the processor speeds in the MacBook Pro means 1.67 dual core is coming to the iBook/MacBook. My hope is they still offer a $999 model with dual core. Possibly Apple will offer a $999 MacBook 13" single core while offering a dual core version for, say, $1399. In that case, I'm sticking to Mac Mini I presently own.

[Legacy]

This speed bump definitely means 'Apple have cheked their balances and they kinda underspecced their notebooks'..lol

Guys lets not kid ourselves...Apple will NOT use a Dual Core Processor in the MacBook!

We should have two models @ 13.3" and 14.4" wide $999/1299 with

1.67Ghz Core Solo Processor
512Mb Memory
Radeon X1300 64Mb
60/80Gb Hard Drive (respectively)
CD-RW/DVD Combi on cheapest model / Superdrive SL on the other
All models ship with FrontRow and Remote
No iSight in this revision, don't think Apple can handle that much giveaway.

The MacBook Pro should receive a nice 17" model pretty identical to the 15" for a few more hundred bucks...

My wishlist is:

New PowerBook 12" replacement 13" Wide MB Pro @ $1499

1.67Ghz Core Duo
512Mb memory
80Gb Hard Drive
Superdrive
iSight and Frontrow
X1600 128Mb Graphics (although I think it will be a X1300 w/ 128VRAM :( )

Yeah Baby..*hopes*

[milo]

Guys lets not kid ourselves...Apple will NOT use a Dual Core Processor in the MacBook!

I don't think that lineup makes any sense. Why would *anyone* pay $1299 for a core solo when for $200 more they could get a box that is TWICE as fast plus a bunch of other features? I can't imagine who would want to do that.

I can just picture the ads now: New Intel Macbook Lite! Now blazing 1.2X faster than the old iBook!

[thejedipunk]

Everyone here is forgetting that the iMac is still called "iMac." If Apple wanted "Mac" in all the names of their product lines, why didn't they change it something like "Mac____"? "iBook" is a name that I want to stay, and it should, and since the iMac name didn't get changed, iBook will stay.

I figure that this new iBook will take the form of the current 12" PB. Would make sense. They could also throw in an HD screen or Widescreen but not both (correct me if I am wrong, but aren't both those things like brother and sister?). Also, they should stop that ******** of not having line-in ports on all their computers. Since these are "media" centric computers, they should have them standard on all computers.

I say Core Duo for both. Lowest possible speed for a 12", seeing as how a 12" notebook is a staple of Apple's. 1.66 for 13 or 14".

12" will have:
Core Duo @ 1.whatever Ghz
Combo Drive at high speed or BTO SuperDrive at current low speed
plus all the standard features like Sudden Motion, Scrolling Trackpad.
64mb V-RAM
512 RAM
60 gig HDD expandable to 120 as BTO
Bus=200ish

13 or 14" will have:
Core Duo @ 1.66 Ghz
SuperDrive @ whatever speed that won't match the MBP
plus standard features.
64mb V-RAM expandable to 128 as BTO
512 RAM
80 gig HDD expandable to 120 as BTO
Bus=200ish

No dual-layer Superdrives though.

FrontRow however..................I'm not too sure. It's obvious that it's going to end up on the Mac mini, so I don't see why they wouldn't. Or it could be a BTO option. Or the could stick it on the higher end iBook, but not as a BTO for the 12".

I also figure that they are going to slap iSights on the next generation of Cinema Displays. Just to compensate for the Mac mini's lack of a monitor. Which brings me back to the iBook. Not too sure about it. Putting it on the higher end makes it too close to the MBP. Way too close.

The only difference would the lack of a dual-layer SuperDrive and processor speeds.

As long as they come with Core Duos, faster bus speeds and line-in ports, I will be happy.

[~Shard~]

Everyone here is forgetting that the iMac is still called "iMac." If Apple wanted "Mac" in all the names of their product lines, why didn't they change it something like "Mac____"? "iBook" is a name that I want to stay, and it should, and since the iMac name didn't get changed, iBook will stay.

:confused: You just contradicted yourself.

As you said, Apple wants "Mac" in all of their products' names - and as you said, the iMac is still called the "iMac" for this very reason - there was no need to change it. "iBook" doesn't have "Mac" in its name, therefore it makes sense that Apple will change it to "MacBook".

Your logic is flawed. :cool:

[rog]

Single core and Rosetta would be a match made in hell!

[Legacy]

I don't think that lineup makes any sense. Why would *anyone* pay $1299 for a core solo when for $200 more they could get a box that is TWICE as fast plus a bunch of other features? I can't imagine who would want to do that.

I can just picture the ads now: New Intel Macbook Lite! Now blazing 1.2X faster than the old iBook!


RU kidding me? A Core Solo 167 is at least 2x if not 2.5x faster than the current 1.42Ghz G4 lol..a dual processor is not double performance either..

You are forgetting Apple have gone to the extent of

1. Crippling the iBook with 32Mb Vram eventhough it has a better GPU than the 12" PowerBook
2. Using rare 4200rpm drives
3. Disabling Screen Spanning

A Core Solo seems a very viable option for the MacBook, simply it is not a Pro machine, thus does not need a dual core processor.

As for Rosetta, it should still run the basic Apps fine with a single core chip..we are talking Office and Messengers etc, NOT photoshop..if you wanna run photoshop, get a MB Pro..that will be the message from Apple... (until universal binaries are released)

[iJed]

It would be a very very stupid decision to use the Core Solo in any product other than the cheapest of the cheap budget notebooks. I would certainly not even consider a MacBook if it was so horribly crippled.

[LANcaster]

Bus=200ish
Not a chance in hell, even the ULV Celeron Ms have a 400 MHz bus speed.

It would be a very very stupid decision to use the Core Solo in any product other than the cheapest of the cheap budget notebooks. I would certainly not even consider a MacBook if it was so horribly crippled.
Hate to argue with a fellow Scot, but that's just utter rubbish. The Core Solo is a very fast chip, obviously I'd love to be able to buy a Core Duo laptop for $1000, but saying the Core Solo is "crippled" is insane. You could easily argue that the current iBooks are crippled by having antiquated G4s in them!

If Apple decide to put a Core Duo chip in the new iBooks then I can't see how they are going to be able to stick to the current $1000 price point for the low-end model. That is unless they decide to sell it as a loss leader, but I doubt the Steve will like that!

Also the Yonah architecture almost always does much more useful work per clock than a PPC7447, so a 1.67 GHz Core Solo wouldn't just be slightly faster than a 1.42 G4; it would be a LOT faster.

[eMagius]

Why wouldn't they just use the Core Solo as default and have Core Duo as an upgradable option?

I can easily imagine two models of the iBook (MacBook Mini?), both with the same physical packaging (13.3"):

1. Core Solo (1.67 GHz), smaller hard drive (30-40 GB), 512 MB of RAM, and CD-RW/DVD drive at $999

2. Core Duo (1.67 GHz), larger hard drive (60 GB), a gig of RAM, and Superdrive for $1299, with optional processor speed and hard drive upgrades for additional fee (as with the MacBook Pro).

[Legacy]

Not a chance in hell, even the ULV Celeron Ms have a 400 MHz bus speed.


Hate to argue with a fellow Scot, but that's just utter rubbish. The Core Solo is a very fast chip, obviously I'd love to be able to buy a Core Duo laptop for $1000, but saying the Core Solo is "crippled" is insane. You could easily argue that the current iBooks are crippled by having antiquated G4s in them!

If Apple decide to put a Core Duo chip in the new iBooks then I can't see how they are going to be able to stick to the current $1000 price point for the low-end model. That is unless they decide to sell it as a loss leader, but I doubt the Steve will like that!

Also the Yonah architecture almost always does much more useful work per clock than a PPC7447, so a 1.67 GHz Core Solo wouldn't just be slightly faster than a 1.42 G4; it would be a LOT faster.

How many Dual Core notebooks can you find me in the £700-900 price range? I don't know why people are dissing the Solo, its as good as a Dothan at around that speed, if not better I would have assumed!

[t^3]

I also figure that they are going to slap iSights on the next generation of Cinema Displays. Just to compensate for the Mac mini's lack of a monitor.
I really don't think iSights will be in the Cinema Displays. What about people who are using them with an iMac or MacBook Pro? It'd be weird for them to have 2 iSights. What's more likely is that Apple will revamp the iSight into a smaller package and lower the price for those who get a Mac without an iSight built-in.

[Meemoo]

You guys obviously did not read my post about upgrading the processor from Core Solo....

The iBook/Mac Mini SHOULD, be Core Solo with a Duo as a BTO option.

I think in the MBP the 7200rpm drive should have been a STANDARD feature, this way the iBook would have 5400rpm.

GPU, RAM, ect are all up in the air.

Producing a 1299 intel iBook with Core Duo is easy, $999 might be diffacult but I think Apple will introduce the iBook in at $1299, and perhaps a $1499 model(both with the Core Solo upgradable to the Duo)

I want a Duo in a Apple laptop but I want the portability of a small notebook. So either apple needs to announce new MBPs or get their **** together with the iBook.

[Legacy]

You guys obviously did not read my post about upgrading the processor from Core Solo....

The iBook/Mac Mini SHOULD, be Core Solo with a Duo as a BTO option.

I think in the MBP the 7200rpm drive should have been a STANDARD feature, this way the iBook would have 5400rpm.

GPU, RAM, ect are all up in the air.

Producing a 1299 intel iBook with Core Duo is easy, $999 might be diffacult but I think Apple will introduce the iBook in at $1299, and perhaps a $1499 model(both with the Core Solo upgradable to the Duo)

I want a Duo in a Apple laptop but I want the portability of a small notebook. So either apple needs to announce new MBPs or get their **** together with the iBook.

Why have a BTO option, thats going to encourage people to buy that product line..the MacBook Pro won't have the edge. If I was in sales at Apple, I wouldn't run that risk. Besides, they could have easily had BTO for the things above, ie 64Mb VRAM or a 5400rpms drive but they didnt...WHY? so they can seperate the product lines with non-washable ink..thats marketing.

[Bonte]

With the whole rosetta emulation a single core won't cut it at all, i don't think a speed below the dual core 1.6 is marketable especially when its just a 50$ price difference between a single and dual core.

[LANcaster]

How many Dual Core notebooks can you find me in the £700-900 price range? I don't know why people are dissing the Solo, its as good as a Dothan at around that speed, if not better I would have assumed!
None, that was precisely my point!

I wasn't dissing the Solo, I said it was a "very fast chip" and significantly faster than the G4 per clock cycle. I'm assuming you just misread my post?

[iJed]

Hate to argue with a fellow Scot, but that's just utter rubbish. The Core Solo is a very fast chip, obviously I'd love to be able to buy a Core Duo laptop for $1000, but saying the Core Solo is "crippled" is insane. You could easily argue that the current iBooks are crippled by having antiquated G4s in them!

If Apple decide to put a Core Duo chip in the new iBooks then I can't see how they are going to be able to stick to the current $1000 price point for the low-end model. That is unless they decide to sell it as a loss leader, but I doubt the Steve will like that!

Also the Yonah architecture almost always does much more useful work per clock than a PPC7447, so a 1.67 GHz Core Solo wouldn't just be slightly faster than a 1.42 G4; it would be a LOT faster.

The Core Solo may be a reasonably fast chip but for an extra $32 you can have the dual core part. Surely it would make sense to increase the price by that $32 to have a much more powerful system.

Speculation: I bet the Core Solo chips include the second core in their package too. They are probably just Core Duo chips where one of the cores failed or maybe its simply been disabled - a common practise for Intel.

The Core Duo is not really the wonder chip that people are making it out to be. Its based on the old Banias/Dothan architecture, given new life by building on a second core. And its Pentium-M ancestry goes back all the way to the Pentium 3!

Core Duo also lacks x86 64 bit support. On a chip like PPC (which was designed well in the beginning) this makes little difference but on x86 the performance advantages are very significant. AMD 64 doubles the number of general purpose registers from 8 to 16. This is a fix for probably the biggest deficiency in the x86 architecture.

Another major issue is that Core chips, like all Intel x86 CPUs, lack an on-die memory controller increasing memory access latency. This is an area where AMD is clearly in the lead.

Amplifying my previous concern is the relatively slow FSB which bottlenecks memory access much like the G4 (but nowhere near as bad.)

My final gripe is that each core has a smaller number of floating point units than a Pentium-M - the chip its based on.

The Core Duo is still an excellent chip. Just don't expect the crazy benchmarks Apple use to be anything near reality.

[Hattig]

Remember that the prices in this thread are for 1,000 or 10,000 units.

Apple's buying them in quantities of ~1,000,000 units. That means a significant discount will have been arranged with Intel, with other factors including Apple's massive brand name and publicity halo also contributing to the price that Intel will offer Apple.

Without the MacBook Pro release, I bet substantially fewer people would know that Intel have Core Duo out. Getting that information out is worth something to Intel.

So let's assume, say, a 30% reduction over list price. That makes the price difference between a Core Solo and a Core Duo around $20, not worth paying less really - especially if you then twist Intel a bit more (we'll buy Duo instead if they're only $15 more, say).

Dell are rumoured to get around 50% discount from Intel. Maybe Apple twisted Intel enough to get this as well, even though they sell a lot few machines - the machines they sell are higher end.

The MacBook will have a Core Duo processor at the $999 pricepoint.

It may not have discrete graphics however, it might use Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics. They're not totally toss, but an X1300 or X1400 would be a lot nicer.

Apple *may* use Celeron Ms though. They might opt to create a $799 MacBook pricepoint (or $899, with the Core Duo being $1099) with a 1.6GHz Celeron M. Certainly I think they'll be used in the next Mac Mini (although, just maybe, the top of the range Mac Mini (Mac Mini Pro, lol) will have a Core Duo, but cost $799 at least).

[thejedipunk]

:confused: You just contradicted yourself.

As you said, Apple wants "Mac" in all of their products' names - and as you said, the iMac is still called the "iMac" for this very reason - there was no need to change it. "iBook" doesn't have "Mac" in its name, therefore it makes sense that Apple will change it to "MacBook".

Your logic is flawed. :cool:


Hehe didn't catch myself. But either way, the name should stay. It doesn't have "Power" in the name anyway.

Oh yeah, LANcaster, I didn't bother to read the specs of Celerons. I was going off by what the current bus speeds are for the iBook. So yeah, 400 should be fine.

t^3, I understand what you are saying, but what about users of Intel PowerMacs? Sure they can always buy it, but thats another $150 added to the bill. That is if they choose to buy a Cinema Display.

[Jetson]

I don't understand how Apple feels justified to charge an extra $500 for the 1.83GHz to 2GHz speed zit.

I guess the incremental increases in memory and hard drive size might make up for it a bit.

[milo]

RU kidding me? A Core Solo 167 is at least 2x if not 2.5x faster than the current 1.42Ghz G4 lol..a dual processor is not double performance either..

It is on some apps, the benchmarks bear that out. Even for apps that aren't MP optimized, the machine will be more responsive.

From the tests I've seen, most of the speed advantage of the Duo comes from the two cores. In many cases, the Duo beats the single G5, but the single G5 beats the Solo. A core solo at that speed is probably comparable to a single G5 at 1.5G. Maybe that is twice the speed of the G4 powerbook, but that's still nothing to write home about. It's still a machine that's not only half the speed of the macbook for $200 more or the iMac for the same price, but also slower than the imac G5's that were just replaced.

I'll ask it again: why would someone want to spend $1299 when they can get a machine for double the speed for a couple hundred bucks more?


Sure, apple could do it, but it would be an awful decision, and they would likely bomb. The disabled features you mentioned are nothing compared to a box that runs at half speed, especially if you have to use rosetta.


You could easily argue that the current iBooks are crippled by having antiquated G4s in them!

If Apple decide to put a Core Duo chip in the new iBooks then I can't see how they are going to be able to stick to the current $1000 price point for the low-end model.

I would consider the current ibooks practically crippled! Why do you think sales are so awful? They are so slow, I don't think it's good enough to have a fairly big improvement in speed, they need to be competitive with other laptops in the marketplace.

Apple doesn't even need to put the duo into the $999 box, if it's in the $1299 that will be fine.

How many Dual Core notebooks can you find me in the £700-900 price range?!

Acer has one in the $1200-1300 USD range. The cheapest core solo notebook I found was less than $100 cheaper.

None, that was precisely my point!

You need to look harder. I just found one on the LOW end of that range.

[gnasher729]

How many Dual Core notebooks can you find me in the £700-900 price range? I don't know why people are dissing the Solo, its as good as a Dothan at around that speed, if not better I would have assumed!

People are dissing the Core Solo because it is half the speed of Core Duo for $30 less, and maybe ten percent more speed than Celeron M at $130 more. In other words, if Apple builds any computer with Core Solo, they would be wasting their customers money.

Use Core Duo for a computer that is fast.
Use Celeron M for a computer that is cheap.
Use Core Solo for a computer that is neither fast nor cheap.

[~Shard~]

Use Core Duo for a computer that is fast.
Use Celeron M for a computer that is cheap.
Use Core Solo for a computer that is neither fast nor cheap.

So the Core Solo should be reserved for slow expensive computers? Not sure what target market Intel was looking at when they came up with this chip then... :p ;) :cool:

[gnasher729]

Yeah, so far, Dell hasn't announced any Solo machines.
Actually, they have.

Inspiron E1705
Entertainment Powerhouse
Intel® Core™ Solo Processor T1300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005

In general, they give you more hardwrae for the money than Apple does. If Apple ships a core solo laptop, you don't think Dell will have a Core duo box for the same price?

I don't think so. Dells advertised prices are lower, but add Windows XP (Dell recommended for $150), add anti-virus software (an absolute must at $79), add Bluetooth, add multiple monitor support, add the software that comes with a Macintosh, and Dells are suddenly more expensive than a similar Macintosh.

[MacinDoc]

I don't understand how Apple feels justified to charge an extra $500 for the 1.83GHz to 2GHz speed zit.

I guess the incremental increases in memory and hard drive size might make up for it a bit.
Larger HD, twice the RAM (SINGLE DIMM), twice the VRAM. Even without the doubled VRAM, those upgrades on the cheaper model would make the difference only $200. So, Apple is charging $200 for twice the VRAM and a 10% speed boost. Remember, with computers, you always pay a lot more for the last little bit of speed boost. Even Intel's price difference between the T2400 (1.83 GHz) and T2500 (2.0 GHz) is $129.

[godbout]

People are dissing the Core Solo because it is half the speed of Core Duo for $30 less, and maybe ten percent more speed than Celeron M at $130 more. In other words, if Apple builds any computer with Core Solo, they would be wasting their customers money.

Use Core Duo for a computer that is fast.
Use Celeron M for a computer that is cheap.
Use Core Solo for a computer that is neither fast nor cheap.

What would you use if you want a cheapish computer that has the potential for long battery life (a la speedstep) and not have sales crippled by the "notion" that they are using old tech?

[iJed]

What would you use if you want a cheapish computer that has the potential for long battery life (a la speedstep) and not have sales crippled by the "notion" that they are using old tech?

AMD Turion 64 ;)

[MacinDoc]

If Apple decide to put a Core Duo chip in the new iBooks then I can't see how they are going to be able to stick to the current $1000 price point for the low-end model. That is unless they decide to sell it as a loss leader, but I doubt the Steve will like that!

Also the Yonah architecture almost always does much more useful work per clock than a PPC7447, so a 1.67 GHz Core Solo wouldn't just be slightly faster than a 1.42 G4; it would be a LOT faster.
If Apple couldn't put a Core Duo in a laptop for $999, it couldn't put a Core Solo in one for that price either, since the price difference between the two chips would be almost negligible for Apple, and the supply of the Core Duo would likely be more reliable, because a Core Solo is made by disabling one of the cores of a Duo (hence some people's use of the term "crippled").

And where are the real-world benchmarks that show that cycle-for-cycle, the Core Solo is a LOT faster than the G4? Show me, please!

The only reason why I can see why Apple would spend a bunch on money on faster Duos and make a pig's backside out of the release/shipping of the initial orders of the MBP just to upgrade the clock speed FREE OF CHARGE would be that Apple wants to differentiate the MBPs from the coming iBooks. Why else would Apple waste its money and damage its reputation for customer service?

Edit: this artice (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2685&p=1) is the best approximation I've seen on the performance of the Core Solo. Note that for most tasks, a 1.83 GHz Core Solo would be about 25% slower than a 1.9 GHz G5 (which, if i remember correctly, is a bit slower cycle-for-cycle than a G4) in Universal Binary Apps, and much slower in non-universal apps. If you look at the performance, it almost looks like the biggest improvement in the Intel iMac is the graphics card, not the processor. It's almost as if the Intel iMac is really like a Trojan horse, sneaking the idea of a dual core consumer machine into the camps of developers.

[milo]

Inspiron E1705
Entertainment Powerhouse
Intel® Core™ Solo Processor T1300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005

That box is $999. For an extra hundred bucks, you can upgrade to a duo. So intel DOES have a duo box for a couple hundred less than the $1299 Macbook Express Solo that people are proposing.

[godbout]

AMD Turion 64 ;)

Touche :D

[UOKingTut25]

I'm new to the whole processor arena and understanding it. So first off, what will be the big difference between having a solo or a duo in means of speed. Also is it going to be possible to compare Mac processor speeds with PC processor speeds? But if you're looking for pumped up laptop then go for the macbook pro line,but leave the ibook line as a low voltage processor notebook. I'm a college student and I've had my iBook for three years now and love it, and I assume that is a huge market for those who are looking for an entry level notebook or an introductory Apple notebook.

[godbout]

I'm new to the whole processor arena and understanding it. So first off, what will be the big difference between having a solo or a duo in means of speed. Also is it going to be possible to compare Mac processor speeds with PC processor speeds? But if you're looking for pumped up laptop then go for the macbook pro line,but leave the ibook line as a low voltage processor notebook. I'm a college student and I've had my iBook for three years now and love it, and I assume that is a huge market for those who are looking for an entry level notebook or an introductory Apple notebook.

The difference between the solo and the duo is at this time (correct me if I am wrong) debatable. I imagine that you will see somthing on the order of 50% speed increase with the duo and as programs become more multithreaded it might be even better than that. Also, the core duo will really help out with running two threads at one so you should see a large increase in speed when you are multitasking (which us Mac folk seem to love to do)

You will be able to compare the processors to the ones in the PC world so if a PC has a core duo 1.83 for example then it will be the same exact speed as the one in your MBP. Now, the thing is, that you are running different OSes, software and probably different hardware and that will affect how responsive the computer feels.

Finally, the MacBook will probably not have the low voltage core duo/solo because they are more expensive than there non-low voltage counterparts.

[Chacala_Nayarit]

I wait, I wait, I wait for the new Intel iBook..... :cool:

Sing along....:p

[MacinDoc]

The difference between the solo and the duo is at this time (correct me if I am wrong) debatable. I imagine that you will see somthing on the order of 50% speed increase with the duo and as programs become more multithreaded it might be even better than that.
If you look at the Anandtech article I linked in my last post, you will see that the difference is not debatable - for the majority of tasks, the Duo is significantly faster than the Solo.

[jefhatfield]

Yeah, so far, Dell hasn't announced any Solo machines. In general, they give you more hardwrae for the money than Apple does. If Apple ships a core solo laptop, you don't think Dell will have a Core duo box for the same price?



i think the solo will be good for students or modest business/home users like my wife and i

there is only a $75 dollar difference in price between the two chips so the solo chip may never fly with a thousand dollar ibook

[MacinDoc]

i think the solo will be good for students or modest business/home users like my wife and i

there is only a $75 dollar difference in price between the two chips so the solo chip may never fly with a thousand dollar ibook
Intel only charges $32 more for the Duo.

[jefhatfield]

Intel only charges $32 more for the Duo.

wow, is that all? i just read the seventy five dollar figure in a magazine...anyways, the difference is quite small by any measure

i would like the duo in the ibook if it's going to be $999, or even $899 :)

[Squozen]

Single core and Rosetta would be a match made in hell!

People keep saying this, but benchmarks made on the new iMacs with one core disabled disprove it. The amount of memory available makes far more of a difference than the extra core.

[smharmon]

I'll take a 12"/13" MacBook with a low voltage dual 1.5 without optical drive. Imagine the battery life on something like that... :cool: :D

Why stop there, how about no hard drive! 20gb flash... expensive yes, long battery life... YES

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Why stop there, how about no hard drive! 20gb flash... expensive yes, long battery life... YESNah... I need my HD... struggling with only 60 GB on my current iBook... drooling over a 160 GB seagate (http://komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=317423)... settling for 20 GB flash memory isn't even an option... ;)

[gnasher729]

That box is $999. For an extra hundred bucks, you can upgrade to a duo. So intel DOES have a duo box for a couple hundred less than the $1299 Macbook Express Solo that people are proposing.

No, it doesn't cost $999. It costs $1249, and comes with a "mail in and try to make use pay you $250 back anywhere in the next six months if you fill out everything absolutely one hundred percent correct and our dog doesn't eat it" rebate. It doesn't come with a full operating system, only XP Home Edition (Windows XP is $150 extra). It doesn't come with any virus protection which is a must on Windows ($79 extra).

[gnasher729]

What would you use if you want a cheapish computer that has the potential for long battery life (a la speedstep) and not have sales crippled by the "notion" that they are using old tech?

Well, I actually had a look around on the Internet about what "SpeedStep" does and how it helps. It seems to enable one additional power savings mode. So it is very useful if you leave your notebook switched on and watch it doing nothing. It is not of any use when you actually use your notebook to do any work.

Now the second argument: Do you think Macintosh users are idiots? Do you think an iBook should be $200 more expensive, so that it is not "crippled by the notion they are using old tech"? Performance speaks for it self, and a Celeron M will run twice the speed than an iBook with G4 chips. And $200 is about what a customer would pay more for an iBook with Core Solo than for an iBook with Celeron M (because unlike some of the optimists here on the board seem to believe, Apple is not a charity, and if they put a chip into the iBook that costs $130 more list price, _you_ will pay $200 more for the iBook).

[gnasher729]

I'm new to the whole processor arena and understanding it. So first off, what will be the big difference between having a solo or a duo in means of speed. Also is it going to be possible to compare Mac processor speeds with PC processor speeds? But if you're looking for pumped up laptop then go for the macbook pro line,but leave the ibook line as a low voltage processor notebook. I'm a college student and I've had my iBook for three years now and love it, and I assume that is a huge market for those who are looking for an entry level notebook or an introductory Apple notebook.

Somehow people seem to get brainwashed into this "Core" thing.

Intel offers three processors that are suitable for notebooks: Core Duo, Core Solo and Celeron M. At the same clock speed, Core Duo costs about $240, Core Solo costs about $210, Celeron M costs about $100. Core Solo has maybe ten percent more performance than Celeron M. Core Duo has twice the performance of Core Solo in applications that are expected to do really hard work; it also has twice the performance if your computer does anything in the background.

So yes, you are one hundred percent right that Apple should produce a low-cost notebook for people who don't need the performance. Core Solo is not the chip for that notebook. It will add $200 to the price over a Celeron M for very little performance gain.

[gnasher729]

wow, is that all? i just read the seventy five dollar figure in a magazine...anyways, the difference is quite small by any measure

Don't look at magazines, type "intel price list" into Google, and guess what: It will send you to a webpage where Intel itself gives you the prices for every single chip and every single chipset they are selling, so you can judge for yourself. (The prices there are in trays of thousand, so you have to buy thousand chips to get the quoted price, and Apple is likely to get them a bit cheaper, but not that much cheaper).

[jacobj]

Nah... I need my HD... struggling with only 60 GB on my current iBook... drooling over a 160 GB seagate (http://komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=317423)... settling for 20 GB flash memory isn't even an option... ;)

I need 200GB in my laptop.. no joke. With the MBP the power is more than enough for my needs, but the storage may prove disabling. I currently have 20GB free of 100GB in my PB (replaced HD) and that is only because I am constantly tidying up to ensure that I have at least 20% free. I want to be a little lazier and 200GB is what I need.

I also went for the MBP so that I could finally edit some movies and again 200GB is a minimum for that...

Come on Seagate or Hitachi,... I need a 200GB 2.5" SATA drive.. 400GB would be nice ;)

[smharmon]

Nah... I need my HD... struggling with only 60 GB on my current iBook... drooling over a 160 GB seagate (http://komplett.co.uk/k/ki.asp?sku=317423)... settling for 20 GB flash memory isn't even an option... ;)

I was just kidding... what use would it be without an optical drive? Until DVDs and software come on memory stick...

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I was just kidding... what use would it be without an optical drive? Until DVDs and software come on memory stick...It's not that silly. I have an external Firewire/USB2 superdrive that I prefer to use over the internal combo drive when at home... and I've never ripped any CDs or installed any software (from CDs) away from home... ;)

Just make me some sort of combined stand for the iBook with built in slots for drives (optical and/or HD) with maybe a USB/Firewire hub, etc... Not quite a docking station, but something close... let's see if Apple cannot come up with something stylish and practical... :)

[jacobj]

It's not that silly. I have an external Firewire/USB2 superdrive that I prefer to use over the internal combo drive when at home... and I've never ripped any CDs or installed any software (from CDs) away from home... ;)

I have an external DVD burner, but I can't leave it plugged in all the time. I just don't have the space at home for that sort of clutter. All non-daily hardware gets stored in a box which the cable-knotting fairy visits when the lid is closed. As a result I want everything in my notebook.

For work on the other hand where such space on my desk is less of a premium I would happily use an ultra-slim & light notebook that docks into the rest of its components.

[generik]

I wait, I wait, I wait for the new Intel iBook..... :cool:

Sing along....:p

I can't wait for the small (mouthful) MacBook Pro, and one big Mac and fries to go please :D

[generik]

I need 200GB in my laptop.. no joke. With the MBP the power is more than enough for my needs, but the storage may prove disabling. I currently have 20GB free of 100GB in my PB (replaced HD) and that is only because I am constantly tidying up to ensure that I have at least 20% free. I want to be a little lazier and 200GB is what I need.

I also went for the MBP so that I could finally edit some movies and again 200GB is a minimum for that...

Come on Seagate or Hitachi,... I need a 200GB 2.5" SATA drive.. 400GB would be nice ;)

Why not get a external FW800 drive?

[jacobj]

Why not get a external FW800 drive?

I have one. It's just a pain in the ar*e to have to keep plugging it in whenever I want to do anything that requires real storage!

[steve_hill4]

I think the iBook name is on the way out, and I don't think Apple will limit themselves to two rigid lines of laptops anymore. "MacBook ______" allows for multiple different products that aren't necessarily in a strict hierarchy. Just like with iPods. There can now be low-end and high-end MacBooks, ultrathin, ultrathick, tablets... whatever the future may call for.
Yeah, the name tablet is naff, same as mp3 player was going nowhere as a name until iPod came along. I vote the Apple tablet to be called something like MacBook slate. Fits in well with the writing on a slab concept.

As for entry-level MacBooks, it's got to be a Core Solo, however much people will want LV Duos or Duos. The LV versions will have to be in an ultra-portable and be towards the Pro in price.

[TheProfit]

maybe this make's sense (i read it somewhere but can't find it anymore)

MacBook:
13.3" (WS)
15.4" (WS)
Both use Intel Core Solo (only 1.66 available at this point)
GPU x1300 with 64mb (maybe 15.4" with 128mb)
No Isight (maybe no frontrow and remote to keep the price's low)

MacBook Pro:
13.3" (WS)
15.4" (WS)
17" (WS)
All use Intel Core Duo (variating from 1.66 (for 13.3") to 2.16 (for 17")
GPU x1600 with 128mb (only for 13.3") and 256mb (option on the 15.4" and standard on the 17")

RAM and HDD you can configure them yourself and the 2 options on the MacBook Pro 15.4" will disappear and you will get more configuration options.

[jacobj]

maybe this make's sense (i read it somewhere but can't find it anymore)

MacBook:
13.3" (WS)
15.4" (WS)
Both use Intel Core Solo (only 1.66 available at this point)
GPU x1300 with 64mb (maybe 15.4" with 128mb)
No Isight (maybe no frontrow and remote to keep the price's low)


Have intel confirmed future Core Solo speeds? If not then Apple may well choose to hold their horses on using it.

[eMagius]

I don't think that lineup makes any sense. Why would *anyone* pay $1299 for a core solo when for $200 more they could get a box that is TWICE as fast plus a bunch of other features? I can't imagine who would want to do that.

a) The machine is clearly not anywhere near twice as fast. On CPU-limited multithreaded applications, there might be substantial speedup, but not for general purpose usage.

b) Because not everyone wants or needs that extra performance. I'd take the $200 savings, myself -- the heaviest applications I run are compilers and media players. I suspect that a 450 MHz G3 would be bearable; a 1 GHz G4 yielded absolutely no complaints.

[MacinDoc]

Have intel confirmed future Core Solo speeds? If not then Apple may well choose to hold their horses on using it.
ATM, only a 1.66 GHz Core Solo has been announced. There's not much point in making a higher clocked one, either, because it would have to be higher in price than the 1.66 GHz Core Duo (the Solos are just as expensive to make as the Duos, since they are essentially the same chip). And who would buy a 1.83 GHz Solo for a higher price than a 1.66 GHz Duo?

[MacinDoc]

As for entry-level MacBooks, it's got to be a Core Solo
Why?

[gnasher729]

As for entry-level MacBooks, it's got to be a Core Solo, however much people will want LV Duos or Duos. The LV versions will have to be in an ultra-portable and be towards the Pro in price.

Please tell us what alternatives to Core Solo you considered, and why you rejected them. Did you consider anything that didn't begin with "Core"?

[steve_hill4]

Please tell us what alternatives to Core Solo you considered, and why you rejected them. Did you consider anything that didn't begin with "Core"?
The only alternative to the Core, Solo or Duo, is really the Celeron and I don't think it's actually that wise a move for Appple to use those. Marketing wise, you will have others using them in their entry level models and then for about another $100 they will use the Pentium M. While this is another consideration, most of these models will eventually switch to the Core Solo too, so Apple need to be seen to be on a level playing field.

The only way this could possibly be irrelevant is when a lot of the manufacturers of Windows machines decide to use Core Solo, but within the Centrino Solo badge. Some seem to think Centrino and Pentium M are different processors, so the may consider Core Solo and Centrino Solo in the same way, putting Apple at a disadvantage again, in marketing. Remember, this is about perception to consumers. If they think they are getting too inferior a machine if they go for a Mac for the same cash, whatever the software is like, they will think twice about switching. Trust me, I witness it first hand on a regular basis.

[jacobj]

ATM, only a 1.66 GHz Core Solo has been announced. There's not much point in making a higher clocked one, either, because it would have to be higher in price than the 1.66 GHz Core Duo (the Solos are just as expensive to make as the Duos, since they are essentially the same chip). And who would buy a 1.83 GHz Solo for a higher price than a 1.66 GHz Duo?

Therefore is there an issue with using solos? I am starting to doubt that Apple will use them in their iBook replacements. So what will be there in its place..back to the initial question...

I have to start my reasoning all over again.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Therefore is there an issue with using solos? I am starting to doubt that Apple will use them in their iBook replacements. So what will be there in its place..back to the initial question...
Read page one, first post. The speed bump to 1.83/2.0GHz in the Macbook Pro suggests 1.67 GHz core duo in the Macbook/iBook replacement. There is really no reason for Apple NOT to use the Core Duo in the new iBook with Intel. My feeling is Apple will. No reason the entire laptop line can't go Core Duo. IMHO Apple would be foolish to use Core Solo in a laptop when, as others have pointed out, for $30-35 more they can stick in a Duo and have much better performance.

Bottom Line: Core Duo now, I buy a low end laptop now. Core solo now, I wait until something better comes along.

[jacobj]

Read page one, first post. The speed bump to 1.83/2.0GHz in the Macbook Pro suggests 1.67 GHz core duo in the Macbook/iBook replacement. There is really no reason for Apple NOT to use the Core Duo in the new iBook with Intel. My feeling is Apple will. After all, previously the Powerbooks and iBooks both had G4 processors in them. Processor speeds were slightly higher in the more expensive Powerbooks, but they were all G4 processors. No reason the entire laptop line can't go Core Duo. IMHO Apple would be foolish to use Core Solo in a laptop when, as others have pointed out, for $30-35 more they can stick in a Duo and have much better performance.

Bottom Line: Core Duo now, I buy a low end laptop now. Core solo now, I wait until something better comes along.

I am starting to agree with you, but historically there has been a clear distinction between the two lines. The gap between the iBook and the MBP was only because to have anything less in a notebook would have been stupid and IBM weren't making the G4 any faster and the G5 was a no go. Having said that I'd love to know the pricing of the G4 chips. If the margin between is the same as that between to 1.67 Duo and the 1.8 then I'd say you are right, but then we'll see a price increase which means that apple are moving away from the mass (mac mini) market. I can't see that happening.

So I agree with many here that say that we may see a lower end processor like the Pentium M in the iBook with the Core Duo as an option, or we'll see the duo in the iBook (MacBook) and a new lower end laptop with the Pentium M inside.

[TheProfit]

but if they actually use the duo core's in the new macbook and sinds all the rumors point out that it will be a 13.3" wide screen, why don't they put them in the macbook pro class. It's not right to use core duo in the macbook, because it will be a high end machine and not a low end consumer class.

i'd rather see the 13.3" macbook pro with duo core, then a low end machine with duo core.

the ibook was originally for students who need them for consumer class applications - like iworks and ilife - and the powerbooks/macbook pro's are for the professional user that need to travel alot (correct me if i'm wrong)

[Mr. Mister]

I have one. It's just a pain in the ar*e to have to keep plugging it in whenever I want to do anything that requires real storage!
Why do you unplug it?

[gnasher729]

[H]istorically there has been a clear distinction between the two lines. The gap between the iBook and the MBP was only because to have anything less in a notebook would have been stupid and IBM weren't making the G4 any faster and the G5 was a no go. Having said that I'd love to know the pricing of the G4 chips. So I agree with many here that say that we may see a lower end processor like the Pentium M in the iBook with the Core Duo as an option, or we'll see the duo in the iBook (MacBook) and a new lower end laptop with the Pentium M inside.

The Pentium M is actually low-end, but not low price. For exactly the same money as Core Duo, you get a Pentium M (single core) with very slightly higher clockspeed and significantly lower bus speed. To safe real money, you need the Celeron M. Prices for the G4 chip have been rumored to be $72.

Now the main point: I think Core Duo 1.67GHz vs. 1.83GHz might be just enough of differentiation, and of course smaller screen, cheaper graphics card, no external monitor. Perhaps one model that absolutely minimises the price with a Celeron M, for people who want a second computer to take with them, and one that is more suitable as the main computer, with a Core Duo.

[ezekielrage_99]

I want one of those Notebooks with the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. I was watching a TV show and they were showing this technology off, you get a ridiculous amount of battery life from a single charge.

It looks totally sweet, but I think kind of unrealistic unfortunantly.

[MacinDoc]

but if they actually use the duo core's in the new macbook and sinds all the rumors point out that it will be a 13.3" wide screen, why don't they put them in the macbook pro class. It's not right to use core duo in the macbook, because it will be a high end machine and not a low end consumer class.

i'd rather see the 13.3" macbook pro with duo core, then a low end machine with duo core.

the ibook was originally for students who need them for consumer class applications - like iworks and ilife - and the powerbooks/macbook pro's are for the professional user that need to travel alot (correct me if i'm wrong)
If there is a 13.3" MBP, it certainly will use the Core Duo - just at a higher clock rate (probably the 1.83 GHz) than any Duo that might go into an iBook/Macbook. As with the G4 Powerbooks/iBooks, the main differentiation will be screen resolution, graphics card, RAM slots/maximum RAM, HD speed, and the presence of higher-end connections (such as gigabit ethernet).

[jacobj]

Why do you unplug it?

Because I don't like clutter and I don't have a nice tidy place to put it.

[jacobj]

The Pentium M is actually low-end, but not low price. For exactly the same money as Core Duo, you get a Pentium M (single core) with very slightly higher clockspeed and significantly lower bus speed. To sa[v]e real money, you need the Celeron M. Prices for the G4 chip have been rumored to be $72.

Now the main point: I think Core Duo 1.67GHz vs. 1.83GHz might be just enough of differentiation, and of course smaller screen, cheaper graphics card, no external monitor. Perhaps one model that absolutely minimises the price with a Celeron M, for people who want a second computer to take with them, and one that is more suitable as the main computer, with a Core Duo.

I think we're getting there.

[DontBurnTheDayy]

Can somebody tell me why Apple wouldn't use the 1.5 LV Duo chips?? Not only would it be suitable for the iBook, but it would be significantly slower, yet able to browse through programs easily. Battery life is another concern as well, and announcing a product that has an 8-hour-plus would have the new iBooks flying out the door. The "Core Duo" is really just starting to make a broad public appearance, and new technology is always appealing. I am planning on buying an iBook in August, however, there is no way I will buy it with a solo inside. I am sure there are many out there that would do the same.

The theory about older processors being used such as the Celeron M and the Pentium M will not happen. It's just not good marketing; the name is old (pentium, celeron), it sounds old, and will create little, if any, curiousity or appeal. iBook (MacBook) with Pentium M processor!!!... psh. Won't happen. Ever.

Apple is known for being 'ahead of the game', so to speak, and unvieling a core duo in a sub-1,000 laptop is just that. Using anything less is not. Let's also mention FrontRow. A brand new app, and Apple/Steve is obviously excited about it. The new "Media Center" PC's are popular, and Apple wouldn't miss the opportunity.

To sum it up: what are consumers looking for in a 'consumer-level' laptop??? High battery life, and new appealing features (ex. Front Row, core duo, iSight), and a thin/sleek/portable design.

Apple would not release anything less than:

iBook 13.3" WS - $999
Intel 1.67 Core Duo Processor or 1.5 LV Core Duo
60 GB 5400 rpm HD (opt. 80 or 100)
64 bit video card
Combo Drive
Front Row

iBook 13.3" WS - $1299
Intel 1.67 Core Duo Processor or 1.5 LV Core Duo
80 GB 5400 rpm HD (opt. 100 or 120?)
64 bit video
SuperDrive
Front Row w/ iSight

*This has been mentioned before... but the Powerbooks processors were always only slightly better than the iBooks. Why fix what's not broken?

[MacinDoc]

Can somebody tell me why Apple wouldn't use the 1.5 LV Duo chips??
Price. The LV 1.5 is $284, compared to $241 (which is already really a stretch under the current price structure), but is would certainly help battery life...

[DontBurnTheDayy]

Price. The LV 1.5 is $284, compared to $241 (which is already really a stretch under the current price structure), but is would certainly help battery life...


That is true, but isn't it a good marketing strategy to advertise an 8-hour plus battery life??? For the $43 dollar difference, it should be worth it. And couldn't the battery life realistically be a bit higher with an LV processor?

I'm new with the processor/Mac stuff, but business makes sense. I'm also not betting on seeing a LV... just a possibility.

[jacobj]

Can somebody tell me why Apple wouldn't use the 1.5 LV Duo chips?? Not only would it be suitable for the iBook, but it would be significantly slower, yet able to browse through programs easily. Battery life is another concern as well, and announcing a product that has an 8-hour-plus would have the new iBooks flying out the door.

I think what you say has some credence, but my only concern is that Apple has pushed battery life before, but not as its main asset. I do however think that a semi-pro laptop or pro-salesman type laptop may well be on the books and that is what you are describing.

I'll say it again though: I really think that Apple will be pushing a mac mini type laptop and that may well be a G4 iBook until the end of the year in parallel to the MacBook and MacBook Pro. It may be the last to get a Core Duo chip because by the end of the year the 1.67GHZ and 1.83GHz will be older and hopefully much cheaper.

[Legacy]

Having done a few minutes of research I have come up with a proposition as to what I think the roadmap will be like for Apple following the January releases and subsequent updates to the MB Pro:

MacBook Express (iBook Form Factor) (Should appear later this year)

12.1” 4:3 $699 £499

Intel Core Celeron M 1.46Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM soldered (max 1.5Gb)
Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset
40Gb Hard Drive
CD-RW/DVD Combi

14” 4:3 $799 £569

Intel Core Celeron M 1.6Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM soldered (mac 1.5Gb)
Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset
60Gb Hard Drive
Superdrive SL

Apple desperately needs to cater for the budget mobile user. Many features such as Airport, Bluetooth, Firewire and even a 56k Modem are OTT and will, I think be excluded from this range. The Celeron M will be the new Celeron based on the Core Solo so it will be a good performer. There will also be huge savings on the use, for the first time, of an integrated graphics chipset that is useless for gaming yet perfect for imaging and fully supportive of both Quartz and Core Imaging technologies. Expect screen resolutions and brightness to be lower than the MacBook/MacBook Pro to enhance battery life and distinguish b/w the models.

MacBook

13.3” wide $999 £699

Intel Core Solo 1.67Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1300 64Mb VRAM
60Gb Hard Drive
CD-RW/DVD Combi (Superdrive U/G available)
Front Row
Airport and Bluetooth
iSight express built-in

15.2” wide $1299 £899

Intel Core Duo 1.67Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1300 64Mb VRAM
80Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row
Airport and Bluetooth
iSight express built in

The MacBook will be the next iBook, directly replacing the current models. A shift to widescreen format and Front Row should be expected along with my hope of an iSight express built-in that has half the resolution of the iSight in the MB Pro. VRAM upgrade to 128Mb will cost something around $49 for the 15" model and not be available for the 13.3" for differentiation purposes between the Pro line.

A final point to make about the new iBook in all but name is that while it will be both technologically and architecturally superior to the previous model, the difficulties that Rosetta poses for users of PowerPC pro apps (such as Photoshop) who couldn't afford the premium for the PowerBook will preserve for a limited time, the value of iBook G4's in resale and expect a few refurbs to be available in the Apple store.

MacBook Pro

13.3” wide $1499 £1099

Intel Core Duo 1.67Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1400 128Mb VRAM
80Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row and iSight
Airport and Bluetooth
Firewire 400

15.2” wide $1999/2499 £1479/1749

Intel Core Duo 1.86/2Ghz Processors (2.16Ghz U/G)
512/1Gb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1600 with 128/256Mb VRAM
80/100Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row and iSight
Airport and Bluetooth
Firewire 400

17” wide $2999 £2099

Intel Core Duo 2.16Ghz Processor (2.33Ghz U/G)
1Gb RAM (max 3GB)
Ati Radeon X1800 256Mb VRAM
120Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row and iSight
Airport and Bluetooth
Firewire 400 and 800

Pretty self explanatory I would assume...

[jacobj]

14” 4:3 $799 £569

Intel Core Celeron M 1.6Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM soldered (mac 1.5Gb)
Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset
60Gb Hard Drive
Superdrive SL


Apart from that SD I think and hope you are close to the mark...I can convert so many more people with an entry level machine like that in my arsenal.....

11 and counting.. 12 when my MBP arrives and I seel my PB to a current M$ user.

[Legacy]

Apart from that SD I think and hope you are close to the mark...I can convert so many more people with an entry level machine like that in my arsenal.....

11 and counting.. 12 when my MBP arrives and I seel my PB to a current M$ user.

No the superdrive I think will defo feature in the top range Express version because you can pick up a PC notebook with DVD-RW for £500 now, but obviously the huge savings on the Celeron and Int Graphics will allow for provisions of the Superdrive...I also think the Express will not feature Airport or Bluetooth which is another cost cutting area, along with 4:3 format screens capped at 1024x768/1280x960 resolution...

[dialectician]

Everyone here seems to think that the next product in the pipeline is the ibook replacement. Isn't this wishful thinking? Don't you think that Apple will first come out with a smaller MBP, whether that is 12 or 13 inch? The 12" PB hasn't been updated in a VERY long time. Remember when the 15 and 17" models got the last speed and screen upgrade? Well, the 12" model got nothing.

My university store is now listing the 12" PB as "While supplies last"...

[jacobj]

Everyone here seems to think that the next product in the pipeline is the ibook replacement. Isn't this wishful thinking? Don't you think that Apple will first come out with a smaller MBP, whether that is 12 or 13 inch? The 12" PB hasn't been updated in a VERY long time. Remember when the 15 and 17" models got the last speed and screen upgrade? Well, the 12" model got nothing.

My university store is now listing the 12" PB as "While supplies last"...

I think we'll see the 12" & 17" MBP in March and the MB in April..with the video ipod ;)

[me354]

does anyone think theres any possibility of apple coming up with a decent 899$ laptop?...i can dream cant i?

[generik]

I think we'll see the 12" & 17" MBP in March and the MB in April..with the video ipod ;)

*Drools*

12" MBP.....

[Elrond39]

*Drools*

12" MBP.....

I'll join you if it's a 13.3"...

[generik]

I'll join you if it's a 13.3"...

*Drools below the belt too*

[ezekielrage_99]

- 13.3"
- 1.67 Intel Core Duo
- 512 667 DDR2 RAM (expandable to 1.5GB)
- 40 GB HDD (60 GB, 80GB and 100GB BTO option)
- Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 or Intel® Extreme Graphics 2 (64MB or 128 MB)
- Intel® High Definition Audio (maybe optical out)
- Apple Airport Extreme
- Combo Drive (SuperDrive BTO)
- Bluetooth
- Frontrow
- iSight
- And of course Mac OSX and iLife '06

For probably the USD$1000 to USD$1300 mark.


Well that's my $0.02 of what I think we will be seeing for the iBook (or MacBook) in the coming months.

[zap2]

i'd really like to see iBook chips end up being equal to iMac, so MacBook would have to update to a whole new chip. I like they days when iBook was a ''iMac to go'' now its like a Mac Mini with a built in screen

[MacinDoc]

- 13.3"
- 1.67 Intel Core Duo
- 512 667 DDR2 RAM (expandable to 1.5GB)
- 40 GB HDD (60 GB, 80GB and 100GB BTO option)
- Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 or Intel® Extreme Graphics 2 (64MB or 128 MB)
- Intel® High Definition Audio (maybe optical out)
- Apple Airport Extreme
- Combo Drive (SuperDrive BTO)
- Bluetooth
- Frontrow
- iSight
- And of course Mac OSX and iLife '06

For probably the USD$1000 to USD$1300 mark.


Well that's my $0.02 of what I think we will be seeing for the iBook (or MacBook) in the coming months.
$999 for 64 MB VRAM and Combo Drive, $1299 for 128 MB Intel Extreme Graphics 2 and SuperDrive, I think you've nailed it!

[ezekielrage_99]

$999 for 64 MB VRAM and Combo Drive, $1299 for 128 MB Intel Extreme Graphics 2 and SuperDrive, I think you've nailed it!

I got that from a friend who works R&D for Apple ;)

[jacobj]

- 13.3"
- 1.67 Intel Core Duo
- 512 667 DDR2 RAM (expandable to 1.5GB)
- 40 GB HDD (60 GB, 80GB and 100GB BTO option)
- Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 or Intel® Extreme Graphics 2 (64MB or 128 MB)
- Intel® High Definition Audio (maybe optical out)
- Apple Airport Extreme
- Combo Drive (SuperDrive BTO)
- Bluetooth
- Frontrow
- iSight
- And of course Mac OSX and iLife '06

For probably the USD$1000 to USD$1300 mark


Well that's my $0.02 of what I think we will be seeing for the iBook (or MacBook) in the coming months.

That's an awful lot of processing power for not a lot else..

[ezekielrage_99]

That's an awful lot of processing power for not a lot else..

But remember rosetta need somes power until we all get native Intel software.

Duo would kind of make sense since Apple did apperently buy up a whole heap of Intel Duo 1.67GHz and they aren't putting them in the MacBook Pros or iMac so where do you think the logical place would be to put them?

[jacobj]

But remember rosetta need somes power until we all get native Intel software.

Duo would kind of make sense since Apple did apperently buy up a whole heap of Intel Duo 1.67GHz and they aren't putting them in the MacBook Pros or iMac so where do you think the logical place would be to put them?

I don't disagree with that. But I do think that Apple will give the MacBook (?) a slight price increase and then launch a new lower end line without Duos with the kind of specs mentioned..

[ezekielrage_99]

I don't disagree with that. But I do think that Apple will give the MacBook (?) a slight price increase and then launch a new lower end line without Duos with the kind of specs mentioned..

I thought Apple would increase the price of the iMacs when the Intel iMacs were released however the price stayed the same. I don't think we will see any real big changes with the iBook (MacBook?) when the Intel version is releases however I do agree we will see more BTO options than previous lines of iBooks.

I think from a marketing POV Apple really needs to push the Intel switch as a real positive and they can do it on percieved speed (e.g. putting faster chips inside), so that is using the Core Duo, Xeon and Pentium D whilest staying clear for the time being of Celeron and the other lowbie CPUs.

Percieved advantages in any field is better than actual advantage. BHP Biliton, Silicon Graphics, Sony, discreet and Subway to name just a few do this tactic time and time again to ensure people will buy/invest into the companies ventures.

[Klut]

I hope they realese it soon, I could really need one :)

[ezekielrage_99]

I hope they realese it soon, I could really need one :)

Me too, I hope they release a new Intel iBook (MacBook) soon because I'm in need of a new Notebook.

[macmanuk]

I feel that apple is holding back some information on the Intel chips, they were only 2 years ago shouting that the G5 was a 64 bit chip and that this means twice as fast as 32 bit chips at the same clock speed, so now they are not saying if the Intel chips are 32 or 64, most likely they are 32 bit and that means a step back in performance, yes you can have 2 x 32 bit cores on a chip but that does not make it a 64 bit chip, All of Apple's programme developers made there apps 64 bit for no reason by that assumption, amd have a dual core 64 out, why did apple not go with amd? seems apple have backed the wrong chip maker again.
Dont get me wrong i love apple macs, and hate pc's but it would have been better this way.

Powermac to stick with IBM G5 quads and move to the G6 for true 64 bit power.

Mac Book Pro to use the AMD 64 Core Duo chips

Imac to use AMD 64 Core Duo chips

Mac Book to use Intel Core Duo

And for apple to finally release a OSX for a generic PC, stop all this microsoft windows domination.

Just my thoughts.

MacManUK

[gekko513]

64 bit processing doesn't in any way mean twice as fast performance as 32 bit. For 32, 16 and 8 bit processing, it's equally fast. For 64 bit processing it's at least twice as fast, usually more. For Altivec it doesn't matter. There are very, very few consumer oriented applications that use 64 bit integer processing extensively and at the same time can't use Altivec. Some scientific or cryptographic programs can benefit.

The most noticable effect of 64 bit mode is that an application can adress more than 2GB of memory. This doesn't affect many regular users since few have more than 2GB physical memory, especially in laptops.

In short. 64 bit isn't twice as fast. The MacBooks would hardly benefit at all from having a 64 bit processor.

[jacobj]

64 bit processing doesn't in any way mean twice as fast performance as 32 bit. For 32, 16 and 8 bit processing, it's equally fast. For 64 bit processing it's at least twice as fast, usually more. For Altivec it doesn't matter. There are very, very few consumer oriented applications that use 64 bit integer processing extensively and at the same time can't use Altivec. Some scientific or cryptographic programs can benefit.

The most noticable effect of 64 bit mode is that an application can adress more than 2GB of memory. This doesn't affect many regular users since few have more than 2GB physical memory, especially in laptops.

In short. 64 bit isn't twice as fast. The MacBooks would hardly benefit at all from having a 64 bit processor.

I completely agree, but can an OS not be configured to address up to 4GB even on a 32bit CPU?

[bugfaceuk]

Personally, I think that is less likely, but I of course wouldn't rule it out. My feeling though is that Apple is going to use the Core Solo for something, and the Mac mini is the most logical choice. We'll find out in a month or 2 regardless.... :cool:

I tend to agree with you, the Mini looks destined for a solo. I guess I also feel like the iBook may be solo-bound, although maybe the bigger model will have the 1.67 Duo Low.

As Shard says, we'll find out soon enough now

[gekko513]

I completely agree, but can an OS not be configured to address up to 4GB even on a 32bit CPU?
It can be configured, but it's difficult to make use of the entire 4GBs. I've heard about 3-1 splits, but the split can probably be adjusted. Anyway, I was writing about the average user's case which is 2GB for a user application.

[~Shard~]

I tend to agree with you, the Mini looks destined for a solo. I guess I also feel like the iBook may be solo-bound, although maybe the bigger model will have the 1.67 Duo Low.

As Shard says, we'll find out soon enough now

At least with the slight speed bumps to the MacBook Pros, this would make the use of Core Duos in the iBooks a bit more likely - although I still wouldn't bet money on it playing out that way.

[bugfaceuk]

At least with the slight speed bumps to the MacBook Pros, this would make the use of Core Duos in the iBooks a bit more likely - although I still wouldn't bet money on it playing out that way.

Does feel like a little game of russian roulette... one of the chambers contains a duo, the rest contain solos.... spin the barrell...

I must admit I also very very interested to know what GPU is going to be sitting in there... I guess the guys above are probably right with the Intel Extreeme*/etc but I would like to see something bigger and better in the larger MacBook NonPro.

Of course the "room" could have been being made for the 13.3/12' MBP's rather than the MBNP's.



*ly disappointing performance

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I'll join the Core Solo group for the iBook...

...either that, or they'll have to introduce another laptop line for the under 1000 dollar range

...honestly, has anyone seen a laptop with the Duo processor for under 1000 dollars? If Dell's not offering one, there's no way Apple will...

[Klut]

They could make one version of the MacBook with 1,66 ghz dual core for 1500$, It would be fair prize to me... And that's what a pc laptop costs in norway..

Apple should try to be the best on the marked, and also not too expensive.

[MacinDoc]

I'll join the Core Solo group for the iBook...

...either that, or they'll have to introduce another laptop line for the under 1000 dollar range

...honestly, has anyone seen a laptop with the Duo processor for under 1000 dollars? If Dell's not offering one, there's no way Apple will...
As I've said before, if Apple can't introduce a Duo for under $1000, it can't introduce a Solo for that price either, since the difference in the cost of the processors is negligible for Apple.

[ncook06]

I just want to get an iBook with a duo so I can wait until MBPs have Merom, definitely by Q2 2007. An iBook solo would kill my dreams. Please read this, Steve...

EDIT: also waiting for Leopard :)

[Klut]

When do you think the MacBooks are out?

I need one so badly :P

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

When do you think the MacBooks are out?Next Tuesday, of course... :rolleyes:

[~Shard~]

Next Tuesday, of course... :rolleyes:

Wait a second, don't forget that Wednesday is the new Tuesday... :p ;) :D

[ezekielrage_99]

I'll join the Core Solo group for the iBook...

...either that, or they'll have to introduce another laptop line for the under 1000 dollar range

...honestly, has anyone seen a laptop with the Duo processor for under 1000 dollars? If Dell's not offering one, there's no way Apple will...

Acer has an Intel Duo for the sub USD$1400, it was released a couple of days ago.

http://osnews.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=16310448/

The specs on it aren't too bad either, well for a Windows Notebook;)

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

As I've said before, if Apple can't introduce a Duo for under $1000, it can't introduce a Solo for that price either, since the difference in the cost of the processors is negligible for Apple.

Fantastic point; your probably right...I wonder, then, which processor they'll use if they cannot use Core Duo or Core Solo.

By the way, maybe the upper level iBook could be Core Solo (in the 1300 dollar range)...

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Acer has an Intel Duo for the sub USD$1400, it was released a couple of days ago.

http://osnews.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=16310448/

The specs on it aren't too bad either, well for a Windows Notebook;)

Exactly; Acer is relatively affordable (when compared to Apples, anyway :p) so I'm thinking that there's no way Apple will release a 999 dollar laptop with the Core Duo. And, as an above poster brightly noted, because the Core Solo is only 30 bucks less than the Core Duo, they probably won't be using a Solo either...which leaves us with Dothan processors...

...Oh, and there's no way the Mini will use the Core Solo and remain 500 dollars. No way at all...:(

[rhsgolfer33]

They could proable introduce a duo in an iBook but I dont think they will. They'll prolly stick a solo in. Figure Apple wants to make atleast $300 on an iBook, that leaves them with $700 to build the computer.


Core Duo

T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB) w/ Intel 945 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG: $306
RAM $20 per 256mb (from iSuppli's intel iMac teardown): $40 for 512mb
ATI X1600 is $30(iSuppli) so an X1300 should run between $15-$20
A 60gb Fujitsu 4200rpm laptop HD is $85, so Apple prolly pays about half: $45
Total:$411 that leaves $289 for screen, optical drive, case, software, accesories, etc.


Core Solo

Intel T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB) w/ Intel 945 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG: $274
RAM $20 per 256mb (from iSuppli's intel iMac teardown): $40 for 512mb
ATI X1600 is $30(iSuppli) so an X1300 should run between $15-$20
A 60gb Fujitsu 4200rpm laptop HD is $85, so Apple prolly pays about half: $45
Total:$379 that leaves $321 for screen, optical drive, case, software, accesories, etc.


Pentium M

730 (2M L2 cache 1.60B GHz 533 MHz FSB) w/ Intel 915 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 2915ABG: $271
RAM $20 per 256mb (from iSuppli's intel iMac teardown): $40 for 512mb
ATI X1600 is $30(iSuppli) so an X1300 should run between $15-$20
A 60gb Fujitsu 4200rpm laptop HD is $85, so Apple prolly pays about half: $45
Total:$376 that leaves $324 for screen, optical drive, case, software, accesories, etc.



As you can see a Pentium M centrino costs almost the same as a Core Solo centrino, hmm makes sense considering its almost the same thing. I think both the Core Solo and Duo are possible, but I doubt(unless Apple eliminates the Powerbook 12inch) that we'll see a Core Duo iBook. The figures I came up with are mostly from intels website and iSuppli's iBook teardown, with the exception of a few guestimates on the hard drive cost and GPU cost. I hope to see a Solo atleast in the iBook and dedicated graphics, so long as they have those 2 things I will be happy.

[jefhatfield]

i have spent months leaning toward some single processor ibook, but really the core duo is not overly expensive and apple could introduce an ibook with the duo in it...but maybe not exactly at $999 dollars to start

[gekko513]

I think the iBook will be announced with Celeron M and with the new not so sucky Intel integrated graphics. And I think it will be $899 or less.

[Klut]

Next Tuesday, of course... :rolleyes:

Dere bergensere :P

**

Anyways, why do you people keep calling it iBook, isn't it going to be called MacBook?

[~Shard~]

Anyways, why do you people keep calling it iBook, isn't it going to be called MacBook?

Yeah, but we don't know that for sure yet (there's still that 1% uncertainty :p ;)) and plus, there are always the purists out there who will refuse to accept the new name regardless.

[Klut]

Aha, I understand.. I still think it will be called a MacBook, but Apple is still pretty good at surprises eh?

[Legacy]

Aha, I understand.. I still think it will be called a MacBook, but Apple is still pretty good at surprises eh?

I've just thought of something quite different to what I posted previously and that is:

1. No more PowerBook 12" MacBook Pro replacement:
2. Based on economics a raise in price, if Duo is to be used, making a bridge for users who would have wanted the Pro, but just cant afford it yet:

Two MacBook's may debut:

MacBook 13.3" $1299/£829

1.67GHz Intel Core Duo Processor
512MB DDR-2 memory (1.5GB Max)
13.3-inch TFT Display
1280x760 resolution
Ati Radeon X1300
64Mb Dedicated video memory
60GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive (DVD-RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Built-in iSight Express
Front Row with Apple Remote
iSight Express Built-in (640x480 resolution)
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor

MacBook 15.2" $1499/£1099

1.67GHz Intel Core Duo Processor
512MB DDR-2 memory (1.5GB Max)
15.2-inch TFT Display
1440x900 resolution
Ati Radeon X1300
128Mb Dedicated video memory
80GB Ultra ATA hard drive
SuperDrive (DVD-RW/CD-RW)
Built-in AirPort Extreme
Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Built-in iSight Express (640x480 resolution)
Front Row with Apple Remote
iSight Express Built-in
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor

This would leave an enourmous gap for cheap consumers who wish to have a portable Mac for lower prices. There are two ways to treat this issue. Either introduce a cheaper model or outcast that consumer audience altogether. Even if Merom debut's later this year, the Yonah will not become as cheap as the G4 for the considerable future. This means we must expect to see an Apple notebook in the future with specs that have:


Intel Celeron M Processor (Yonah variant) 1.46/1.6Ghz
1MB L2 cache
512MB DDR-2 memory
12.1/14" Conventional TFT Displays
1024x768/1280x960 resolution
Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset
Up to 128MB shared video memory
40/60GB Ultra ATA hard drive
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)/SuperDrive (DVD-RW/CD-RW)
Optional AirPort Extreme
Optional Bluetooth 2.0+EDR
Scrolling Trackpad
Sudden Motion Sensor

$799/£529 and $999/£699

[gnasher729]

Fantastic point; your probably right...I wonder, then, which processor they'll use if they cannot use Core Duo or Core Solo.

Google for "Intel Price List". Go through their price list and check which processors are significantly cheaper than Core Duo, like under $100.

[ezekielrage_99]

Exactly; Acer is relatively affordable (when compared to Apples, anyway :p) so I'm thinking that there's no way Apple will release a 999 dollar laptop with the Core Duo. And, as an above poster brightly noted, because the Core Solo is only 30 bucks less than the Core Duo, they probably won't be using a Solo either...which leaves us with Dothan processors...

...Oh, and there's no way the Mini will use the Core Solo and remain 500 dollars. No way at all...:(

That could bring out an Intel Core Duo in the iBooks if Apple bought a whole heap of the Duos at a very cheap rate and it they lower the hardware specs (e.g. Intel Intergrated Extreme Graphics, etc).

It could be very possible they bring out a Duo in the new iBooks.

[Spies]

I thought at the end of May, Intel were slashing their prices on Duo's by up to 33%?

[ezekielrage_99]

Intel droping processors prices by 30%

READ IT

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/02/21/intel_core_duo_price_cuts/

[Spies]

Note how the T2300 L2300 and L2400 have no reported price drops though...

The T2300 currently costs $241

[bill4588]

im really looking forward to getting my mac laptop this summer....i hope this new ibook is released by then. And for an affordable price - either the same or cheaper than they are now. I would love for them to sell it for $899....but that's probably not gonna happen...I would like for it to be widescreen and available in silver or black (but white is cool too). As long as it's better than it is now I'll be happy.

[Legacy]

With the launch of the New Mac Mini, which was till now effectively a headless iBook, I think the accurace of our speculation as to the specs of the new MacBook can be strengthened. A few things can be read from the MacMini update:

1. Apple will not be using anything less than Intel Core processors, thats a Solo or Duo. So no Pentium M and no Celeron guys.

2. Apple has for the first time, introducted an integrated graphics solution which has modest performance yet marks a tremendous philosophical move with economic benefits for the company which once frowned upon integrated solutions.

3. The MacMini has received a host of new features including Front Row with Bonjour and other goodies. This marks a more feature based rather than purely geeky spec based approach adopted by Apple for its consumer line.

With these in mind I would now wish to bring this thread to life again and predict the following:

Two MacBook models with a price increase at $1099/1399

13.3" MacBook $1099/£799

Intel Core Solo 1.5Ghz Processor w/ 2MB Cache
512Mb DDR-2 Memory on a 667Mhz Bus (2x 256Mb)
60Gb 5400rpm Hard Drive
Intel Integrated Graphics GMA 950
Airport and Bluetooth 2.0 Standard Features
Audio in/out with 5.1 Surround Sound
MagSafe
Combi Drive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
FrontRow with Apple Remote
iSight built-in

15.2" MacBook $1399/£999

Intel Core Duo 1.66Ghz Processor w/ 2MB Cache
512Mb DDR-2 Memory on a 667Mhz Bus (2x256Mb)
80Gb 5400rpm Hard Drive
Intel Integrated Graphics GMA 950
Airport and Bluetooth 2.0 Standard Features
MagSafe
Audio in/out with 5.1 Surround Sound
Superdrive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
FrontRow with Apple Remote
iSight built-in

[powerbook911]

No way there will be a 15-inch consumer MacBook.

There will be 2 13-inch models.

One will have Core Solo, for probably $1099 (Maybe $999).

The second will have Core Duo, for $1299.

JMHO. :)

[Legacy]

No way there will be a 15-inch consumer MacBook.

There will be 2 13-inch models.

One will have Core Solo, for probably $1099 (Maybe $999).

The second will have Core Duo, for $1299.

JMHO. :)

There are alot of people who cant use the 12" one at the moment or think it is too small...the 14" was there but a 13.3" will still be small because its widescreen so it wont make up for the 14". I think they need a 15" consumer laptop. The MB Pro at £1500 is far too much money.

[ScottB]

Lets hope we see the low voltage 1.66 core duo. I would'nt have said this before the mac mini release because I though it was way to unrealistic but it dosn't feel so far fetched now. I would even prefer they took away a graphics card than include a slow and power consuming CPU.

[powerbook911]

There are alot of people who cant use the 12" one at the moment or think it is too small...the 14" was there but a 13.3" will still be small because its widescreen so it wont make up for the 14". I think they need a 15" consumer laptop. The MB Pro at £1500 is far too much money.

You make a good point

However,

I really don't think they'll mix the sizes between Pro and Consumer. Furthermore, all the rumors on Think Secret and Appleinsider have pointed to only a 13-inch model. In general things like that, they are normally spot on.

Who knows, but I'm pretty confident with my thought. :) I'm not saying its the best decision, but just what I think Apple will do.

[Detektiv-Pinky]

With the launch of the New Mac Mini, which was till now effectively a headless iBook, I think the accurace of our speculation as to the specs of the new MacBook can be strengthened. A few things can be read from the MacMini update:

1. Apple will not be using anything less than Intel Core processors, thats a Solo or Duo. So no Pentium M and no Celeron guys.

2. Apple has for the first time, introducted an integrated graphics solution which has modest performance yet marks a tremendous philosophical move with economic benefits for the company which once frowned upon integrated solutions.

3. The MacMini has received a host of new features including Front Row with Bonjour and other goodies. This marks a more feature based rather than purely geeky spec based approach adopted by Apple for its consumer line.

With these in mind I would now wish to bring this thread to life again and predict the following:

Two MacBook models with a price increase at $1099/1399

13.3" MacBook $1099/£799

Intel Core Solo 1.5Ghz Processor w/ 2MB Cache
512Mb DDR-2 Memory on a 667Mhz Bus (2x 256Mb)
60Gb 5400rpm Hard Drive
Intel Integrated Graphics GMA 950
Airport and Bluetooth 2.0 Standard Features
Audio in/out with 5.1 Surround Sound
MagSafe
Combi Drive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
FrontRow with Apple Remote
iSight built-in

15.2" MacBook $1399/£999

Intel Core Duo 1.66Ghz Processor w/ 2MB Cache
512Mb DDR-2 Memory on a 667Mhz Bus (2x256Mb)
80Gb 5400rpm Hard Drive
Intel Integrated Graphics GMA 950
Airport and Bluetooth 2.0 Standard Features
MagSafe
Audio in/out with 5.1 Surround Sound
Superdrive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
FrontRow with Apple Remote
iSight built-in

How would this affect battery life?

The current iBooks are said to last up to 5 hours (which is simply fantastic in this price range). From my experience (Windows only) and what people report about the MacBook Pro it seems that the Intel CPU is generating much more heat than the G4.

For me battery life is absolutely crucial and as much as i love the new additions I am now seriously thinking about bying a G4. :confused:

[Spies]

How would this affect battery life?

The current iBooks are said to last up to 5 hours (which is simply fantastic in this price range). From my experience (Windows only) and what people report about the MacBook Pro it seems that the Intel CPU is generating much more heat than the G4.

For me battery life is absolutely crucial and as much as i love the new additions I am now seriously thinking about bying a G4. :confused:
Depends if they use the low voltage versions or not, theres an L2300 and an L2400 running at 1.5ghz and 1.66ghz respectively.

[Detektiv-Pinky]

Depends if they use the low voltage versions or not, theres an L2300 and an L2400 running at 1.5ghz and 1.66ghz respectively.

Well, I don't think this is likely. The low voltage versions are quite expensive:

L2300 - 284$ (1.5ghz)


L2400 - 316$ (1.66ghz)

as compared the standard ones:

T2300 - 241$ (1.66ghz)


T1300 - 209$ (1.66ghz)

:(

[steelfist]

i really don't care if it's dual core or core solo, i just don't want to see a 14 inch ibook, and instead have a widescreen 13 inch ibook.

i think it would be logical to have a single core for apple. why buy a macbook pro when you can get an ibook at a LOT lower price, that has a processor that is the same as the macbook pro except for a few megaherz difference? well, the good compromise is, to have a really slow dual core proccessor like 1.3 ghz.

also, apple is unlikely to spend more money for the ibook's processor than on the macbook pro's processor.

[bill4588]

if the speculation turns out to be true that would suck...well for me at least. I want an iBook for college and can't go over $1000....so I may have to end up getting the current iBook because it's cheaper. But it would kill me knowing that there's a brand new version out there....

[dansgil]

What I'm hoping or is two iBooks, both built around the much-speculated about 13.3" screen.

Specs:

Low-End:

1.66ghz Core Solo
512mb DDR2 memory
60gb 5400 RPM HD
Intel Integrated Graphics
Combo Drive
Built-In Airport and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR


High End:

1.67ghz Core Duo
512mb DDR2 memory
80gb 5400 RPM HD
NON-Integrated graphics card (I sincerely hope Apple doesn't use integrated graphics.
DL Superdrive
Built-In Airport and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR

I hope for at least 6 hours of battery life on both, and no thicker than 1.1"

[powerbook911]

What I'm hoping or is two iBooks, both built around the much-speculated about 13.3" screen.

Specs:

Low-End:

1.66ghz Core Solo
512mb DDR2 memory
60gb 5400 RPM HD
Intel Integrated Graphics
Combo Drive
Built-In Airport and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR


High End:

1.67ghz Core Duo
512mb DDR2 memory
80gb 5400 RPM HD
NON-Integrated graphics card (I sincerely hope Apple doesn't use integrated graphics.
DL Superdrive
Built-In Airport and Bluetooth 2.0+EDR

I hope for at least 6 hours of battery life on both, and no thicker than 1.1"

They won't let the Solo be 1.66 GHZ. I know you did 1.66 instead of 1.67, but they'll still going to think that will cause confusion, even with one being Solo and one being Duo. They'll do like the Mac Mini, and the Solo will be 1.5.

[syriana]

it seems (see other threads) like in the mini's case, the integrated graphics was chosen not only for it's price, but also for the very little space it uses.
If apple is redesigning the ibook/macbook, they may very well take that into account and be able to deliver somthing with enogh room for a dedicated graphic card.
Plus, going from mobility 9200 to GMA 950 may prove to be a step forward. But going from mobility 9600 to GMA 950 is another issue...

[Legacy]

Plus, going from mobility 9200 to GMA 950 may prove to be a step forward. But going from mobility 9600 to GMA 950 is another issue...

*Applauds* I think that comment deserves that...the 9550 is literally nearly if not a 9600 with a fewer bells and whistles. I dont know how a X1300 fairs against a 9550 but it would seem to me a X1300 with 64Mb of memory would have to be the least anyone could expect with the new MacBook. Im just worried that my prediction with the GMA turns out to be right...:o

[syriana]

*Applauds* I think that comment deserves that...
thanks!!:o

just understood how to quote properly...
sorry

[Shadow]

It has GOT to be dual core. Even if it's BTO, Im getting one.
:D

[jordanste]

core solo for lower level,
and duo for higher level.

much like the mac mini arrangement.

[Shadow]

core solo for lower level,
and duo for higher level.

much like the mac mini arrangement.

Agreed completly. The Mac Mini generally has the same specs as the iBook (or roughly) and the Intel Mac Mini has gotta be faster then the G4 Mini (otherwise they wouldnt sell it) and that is plently fast for me.
:)

[ScottB]

core solo for lower level,
and duo for higher level.
Yep, that'll be the configurations. And if they don't put duos in one I'm sure we will see a built to order option, much like the MacBook Pro's.

[MacSA]

If you look at the benchmarks posted by MacWorld comparing the Intel Mini to the PPC Minis, it clearly shows the GMA950 performing a little worse than the 9200 when it comes to some games.

Now many people have raised the valid point that if you're a serious gamer the mini really isn't for you - which is generally true, but it was capable of playing more basic games which would probably keep the occasional gamer happy.

On the other hand you can see why some people are not happy that a new computer is performing worse in some areas than the older one it's replacing. Infact the 1.25 G4 mini performed better than the 1.5 Core Solo in the UT2004 benchmarks provided by MacWorld.

Which brings us on to the iBook and it 9550 card. This card is quite an improvement over the 9200 and judging from the reaction the Intel Mini's with their integrated graphics got, it would seem unwise for Apple to include integrated graphics with it.

[sunfast]

I really hope the higher specs are available in a 13.3" widescreen MacBook. Could be a lovely little machine and tempt me away from a small MBP (is one is made).

Integrated graphics appear likely though as I expect the MacBook to closely follow the Mini specs.

[Joe2000]

I'm Losing My Faith In Apple. :eek:

Seriously - the iBook is an iMac to go!! So why is the iBook basically a Mini with a screen!! :eek: :eek: :confused:

In the new iBook (MacBook) I'd like to see a Core Duo option but for no more than £1000. I need a new Apple Laptop, my iBook G4 1.2 isn't powerful enough. :(

I could buy an iMac...but then then i wouldent be able to lie on my bed with it, take it to my local Starbucks or take it to school! :mad:

Apple want to get their act together - I listened to an iPod Hi-Fi and i wasnt impressed. That thing is big, it sounds OK but you can tell their isn't a tweeter (dedicated hi frequency driver) in there. It has a lot of bottom end and it can crank! :D But i'd go for the Bose SoundDock...It looks nicer and has better sound quality - No way can the iPod HiFi comptete with the Bose WAVE systems! (What Apple thinks is the main competitor) and the new mini sucks :(

I used a MacBook today and they ARE SCREEMERS! I'm very impressed by their performance but i simply cant afford one :( Oh well lets hope for a Core Duo and proper Graphics for under £1000 please!

Thanks, Joe. :(

[lord patton]

Seriously - the iBook is an iMac to go!! So why is the iBook basically a Mini with a screen!!


When have the iBook specs ever been comparable to the iMac?

The iBook is Apple's entry level mobile. The iMac is a mid-level (albeit, still consumer grade) desktop. Aside from the similarity in their names (which I guess is about to change), there's no reason to think they should be comparable.

Anyway:
1) They should, IMO, keep a sub-$1000 model.
2) The low-voltage chips are not Intel's entry level (Core) chip. They won't be in Apple's entry level portable. Low voltage is actually (a certain kind) of high performance chip.
3) They'll have the new bells and whistles (MagSafe, iSight, frontrow, remote)
4) Just like before, they'll be differentiated from the pro machines by optical drive, video memory, processor speed/type, hard drive speed and capacity. Perhaps also different screens and the ability to do extended desktop (although I think it's way past time all mac portables do dual-display)

Who knows about form factor. My guess is there will be both pro and non-pro versions of the ~15 and ~13 inch portables, and only a pro version of the 17".

[designed]

I'm looking forward to the new Intel iBook (now that I heard I might have a chance of getting one), since MBP has a few downsides on my eyes: the only currently available display size (15") is too big for my taste and I want a better battery life, which probably won't be a hard thing to do with a smaller display and slower processor. Also some users apparently have complained about the MBP getting a bit too hot but go figure.

If the new iBook gets backlit keyboard and Magsafe (well ok, I can live without that since it apparently can disconnect a bit too easily), I'm giving my VAIO an early retirement.

[ScottB]

Two MacBook models with a price increase at $1099/1399

13.3" MacBook $1099/£799

Intel Core Solo 1.5Ghz Processor w/ 2MB Cache
512Mb DDR-2 Memory on a 667Mhz Bus (2x 256Mb)
60Gb 5400rpm Hard Drive
Intel Integrated Graphics GMA 950
Airport and Bluetooth 2.0 Standard Features
Audio in/out with 5.1 Surround Sound
MagSafe
Combi Drive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
FrontRow with Apple Remote
iSight built-in

15.2" MacBook $1399/£999

Intel Core Duo 1.66Ghz Processor w/ 2MB Cache
512Mb DDR-2 Memory on a 667Mhz Bus (2x256Mb)
80Gb 5400rpm Hard Drive
Intel Integrated Graphics GMA 950
Airport and Bluetooth 2.0 Standard Features
MagSafe
Audio in/out with 5.1 Surround Sound
Superdrive (CD-RW/DVD-R)
FrontRow with Apple Remote
iSight built-in
That sounds reasonable and quite cool if I may say so. I would like to see 5.1 optical output, superdrive and core duo in a laptop less than £999. Maybe not the monitor sizes though.

[Mal]

Unfortunately, I think the Mac Mini may be a sign that Apple's not going to focus on keeping prices low. After all, the cheap version that's stripped down to get rock-bottom prices (at least for Apple) went up $100. I hope the iBook doesn't go up in price, but I'm not expecting a price drop.

jW

[macEfan]

Unfortunately, I think the Mac Mini may be a sign that Apple's not going to focus on keeping prices low. After all, the cheap version that's stripped down to get rock-bottom prices (at least for Apple) went up $100. I hope the iBook doesn't go up in price, but I'm not expecting a price drop.

jW
very true... I wished the ibook price came down $200, but i know it wont