Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nice find boncellis. LOL, the ad says:
The iTab is not built yet. We will build them as they are sold. And they are going on sell today!
I think they meant to say they are going on vacation as soon as they sell their first iTab. :D :eek:


Prom1 said:
I fear that the rotational speeds will be 4200RPM based and 5400RPMs for BTO,
I think Apple has gotten rid of 4200rpm and has only gone to 5400/7200rpm. I don't think anyone makes 4200rpm serial ATA drives.

Also, the iBook never had a 7200rpm option. I would guess the Macbook will only have 5400rpm drive sizes, which for now, means 60/80/100/120GB sizes. (which is why I already bought a 7200rpm serial ATA drive for my new Macbook :) )
 
When 64-bit Merom comes....

macgeek2005 said:
I'm gonna have to get a macbook pro.. the macbook just sounds too crappy.
...that Macbook Pro will seem very crappy.

Not a good time to *invest* in 32-bit MacIntels.
 
ImAlwaysRight said:
(which is why I already bought a 7200rpm serial ATA drive for my new Macbook :) )
Have you really gotten this ready to purchase one in the next 60 days? ahaha wow I wouldn't trust these rumors that much. I mean it is going to happen but the dates always get pushed farther and farther away.
 
AidenShaw said:
...that Macbook Pro will seem very crappy.

Not a good time to *invest* in 32-bit MacIntels.
Why not? there will *ALWAYS* be new technology right around the corner?

Where as I can see the iBook's replacement right around the corner, I can't see a reason why not to get a macbook. The first laptop I ever owned came with Windows 95 on it. When I sold it a year ago, it had XP on it, and ran Office just as good as the newest $3000 alienware laptops do.

Even the oldest G3 iBooks still work just as well and have the same keyboard/mouse/monitor as the newest G4 iBooks.
 
400$ of a couple years ago...

AidenShaw said:
It's the package, folks.

The 950 integrated graphics will let Apple save money (cheaper MaciBook), use less power, and come to market quicker.

And, to be frank, only gamers will notice the difference. The 950 integrated graphics are better than $400 cards of a couple of years ago.
__________________

As long as they get rid of the gawd-awful white plastic enclosures....

Well, I think too that "integrated" graphix are a great way to save money. I play games on my ibook G4 with an integrated ATI 9200 and that thing is pretty much rubbish.

What confuses me is why this talk of integrated graphix. The bloody thing is integrated on the mainboard regardless what company it is.

However AidenShaw, current "integrated" graphix are not better than 400$ cards of 4 years ago, even 5. I bought a 230$ CDN card (USD ~190) card nVidia ti4200 128mb from 2001 and it would spank any of what is out there in the "integrated" market that we have been talking about. The current 9550 in the ibooks are not that much more powerful than the 9200 of the one I have and I will admit that ut2004 ran at a respectable 17fps with low details, my 5 year old ti4200 ran with all details on at 1024*768 at over 35 FPS, falling down to 20 sometimes. There is no comparison, especially if you are talking American Dollars.
 
macgeek2005 said:
I'm gonna have to get a macbook pro.. the macbook just sounds too crappy.
It's a little hard to make a feature comparison when the Macbooks haven't been announced, we have sketchy, conflicting specs, and we've had absolutely no rumors about the graphics chip that is going to be in them. Note this: If the Macbooks have the same optical drive as the Mac Mini's (due to Macbook thicker case design), the Macbook will have a better optical drive (8x vs. 4x, plus DL burner) than the Macbook Pro (the $799 Mini has a better optical drive than any Macbook Pro! :eek: )


MacMosher said:
Have you really gotten this ready to purchase one in the next 60 days? ahaha wow I wouldn't trust these rumors that much. I mean it is going to happen but the dates always get pushed farther and farther away.
Guess I've just been around the Mac rumor scene a little longer than you, my friend. :)

So you don't have much faith Macbooks will be shipping in 60 days? I think they will be announced much sooner than that, maybe even in my hands in 30 days time. So that I don't have to come back and find this thread in a couple of weeks, let me just say now ... I told you so. :D
 
AidenShaw said:
...that Macbook Pro will seem very crappy.

Not a good time to *invest* in 32-bit MacIntels.

What the hell? You're telling me to NOT get a macbook pro, on the day they're updated, because they're not good enough? WTF? When theres 64bit, you'll say "...that Macbook Pro will seem very crappy. Not a good time to *invest* in 64-bit MacIntels", and you'll say theres 128 bit right around the corner.
 
macgeek2005 said:
What the hell? You're telling me to NOT get a macbook pro, on the day they're updated, because they're not good enough? WTF? When theres 64bit, you'll say "...that Macbook Pro will seem very crappy. Not a good time to *invest* in 64-bit MacIntels", and you'll say theres 128 bit right around the corner.

don't bother listening to AidenShaw....he has nothing better to do other than repeating the same bullsh*t over and over again!
 
So, the title of this thread is Intel iBook AND 17" MacBook Pro. We've basically said all that can be said about the MacBook before it's released, so lets talk about the MacBook Pro. Are they updating all the models when the 17" comes out? What will they be like? Will the base model be 2.0Ghz?
 
max_altitude said:
I'm another that's going to wait until Leopard comes out before I buy anything. Hopefully by then there'll be a 13.3'' MBP or a really nicely speced MBP for me to buy!

And so am I. I'm certainly excited about these new laptops but the ol' iMac will soldier on a little longer.
 
hmm....great news. but: i think the 13,3" widescreen is too broad....i'm thinking to buy the 12" powerbook g4 or the new ibook...whats your suggestion??
 
blaskillet4 said:
I still don't get why it would be re-branded as "MacBook".

The "i" was a consumer thing. iBook + iPod + iMac. Or should we expect a "MacPod" soon.

Ugh, I'm going to miss the old name.

Obviously, I've been one of the people all for a name change - the Intel chip needs to be publicized, and a few Mac idolizers will eventually get over the simple name change.

Don't get me wrong, "iBook" is at least not as bad as "PowerBook." Still, you shouldn't be missing the names. Names change. Times change. It is not the name, but the product, that makes the sale.

Plus, MacBook does make a lot of sense. MacBook & MacBook Pro...they go hand in hand, obviously, and people may not be getting confused at all, were it limited to a small size and no 12" MBP comes out. Only the truly stupid (those you can't help anyway) will *accidently* buy one instead of the other. Most people are thinking power and screen size anyway, and the word Pro doesn't do a whole lot there.

Then there's the whole...I got a PC notebook! It doesn't work right! vs I got a MacBook. It works fine.

And somebody mentioned how everyone knows of iBooks. No they don't. Everyone knows iPods. One in a hundred people that know iPods know iBooks. (Figures for illustrative purposes, my personal blind estimate.) In other words, you can get away with a name change.

This MacBook better be good though. The 12" laptops have a niche. I live in Japan. I know people with 17" laptops, and they don't tend to be very bright - that just doesn't work in Japan. This is also why Sony tries so hard to be thin and light and crappy all the same. Take away the 12" PB size, and you risk losing a whole market. No, they won't simply settle for bigger. People are talking about convergence and all that bogus, but before any of that, it's got to be small, sleek, and reliable. Small, obviously, comes first. In fact, to me it makes more sense if they release only one line, called MacBooks. Not Pro or anything. 12" screen, choice of pro-level entry ($1500) or consumer entry ($1000), 13.3" same deal, ($1800 Pro, $1300 Consumer), 15.4" pro level that is significantly faster than previous ($2500), consumer ($1800), and 17" pro ($2800) or super pro ($3200). Pricing gets up there as when they get bigger, they get increasingly more powerful. However, the $1800 consumer 15.4" would be the same hardware insides as the 13.3" Widescreen Pro, by my logic. In other words, you choose a size, than a level of power, or you choose power and then you find the right fit. Small sizes are 12" and 13.3". Medium is 15". Large is 17". Between each size is a gap in power on the pro models. Consumers use the same shell but are limited to power (duh) that changes steadily as you increase size.

i bothered to write all that junk because I see a problem - moving to Intel doesn't necessarily mean that what were formerly iBooks and PowerBooks will be able to exist in the previous manner, as in MB's are a lot weaker and a lot cheaper than the smallest MBP. To me, it makes more sense to combine the lines into one notebook line. This makes it much simpler to settle on a laptop, in which there are more variations than desktops (in terms of hardware and screen size combined).
 
Veritas&Equitas said:
This is probably the most stupid thing I've read on Macrumors in a LONG time. 20-25 FPS "FINE" FOR A FPS? You've gotta be outta your mind. That's not even gaming, it's more like shutting the lights on and off while trying to fire at someone in a dark room.

P.S. I am a gamer, not hardcore, but I enjoy gaming quite a bit.

well, duh. Nobody else gives a boot about fps. Fps? Exactly.

I'm all for better graphics cards in lower models though. But, shared could be fine as long as you have enough of it. 256 for a casual gamer? They may think they need it, but really, the majority of customers won't want to pay for it in a model for consumers. 64 is yesteryear. 128 it is. 256 if it is shared, in the high end consumer level. Integrated? Now THAT may be bad for gamers, but again, if there's 128, it's good for most consumers.
 
Pleasurez said:
hmm....great news. but: i think the 13,3" widescreen is too broad....i'm thinking to buy the 12" powerbook g4 or the new ibook...whats your suggestion??

Well here's the poop scoop. This is IF they don't bring out a 12" Pro. I would watch for mention of such a thing when they release the 17", and if they don't mention anything about 12" and act like it's done, well, that'll suck. I personally hope against hope they won't be that dumb. Then Apple really won't have any small+powerful laptops. And that's what I look for, and I assume, what you look for.

13.3" may actually be LIGHTER than the previous 12" G4 pb, though. But if size is still important...well, you'll be stuck as for small and powerful. Still, the MacBook 13.3" probably will beat the 12" G4 PB. I'm counting on that, since the Mac Mini beats my PowerBook 12". Oh well.
 
AidenShaw said:
...that Macbook Pro will seem very crappy.

Not a good time to *invest* in 32-bit MacIntels.

Wow...for once I agree. Seems like either 10.5 or 10.6 will take control of 64 bit in a way the other do nothings never dreamed of. Or, maybe it might, perhaps, with a chance. But, it's a whole lot easier saying I will hold off till late 2007 early 2008 since I've owned a 12" PB for a year (and no significant revision since then, no significant revision to come if 12" dies).

I wouldn't suggest holding forever to buy a Mac because of such a jump though. It won't be like you CAN'T use 10.5. It'll be like you could have bought a slightly tweakier machine.:eek:

Buy and be :)
Or wait forever without a Mac and be :mad: till it comes out and finally be :)
Or be like me and buy a Mac a year ago and wait until you have to buy and be like :D :D :D
 
Always remember that Intel will ship a new Mobile Cpu in the 3rd quarter which brings 30% more speed while having the same Frequence as Core Duo actually does (2.0 Ghz to 2.33 Ghz Freqeunce). This is because it needs less Energy and so on can be more powerful. It is obvious that Apple takes this CPUs for new MacBook Pro presenting at the WWDC in August. But shipping in October or November. You decide if its worth or not to wait until then
 
thejadedmonkey said:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Not a good time to *invest* in 32-bit MacIntels.​

Why not? there will *ALWAYS* be new technology right around the corner?
...
Even the oldest G3 iBooks still work just as well and have the same keyboard/mouse/monitor as the newest G4 iBooks.
Note that I emphasized *invest* - meaning that the Yonah systems will drop in value more quickly than one might expect when they're replaced by 64-bit systems.

The Yonahs won't run the new 64-bit applications, just like the G3 doesn't run AltiVec applications.

Apple used G3-compatible chips for many years, so there's a big incentive for software houses to keep G3 compatibility.

On the other hand, Yonah will be "king" for only about 9 months before the 64-bit chips hit. Will companies keep a separate 32-bit build for the transition machines sold during that period? Most will, some won't. Another reason that Yonah isn't a good *investment*.
 
AidenShaw said:
In other words, you want what everyone else has when picking a Windows laptop - freedom to choose which features/options are important for you.

Why would you resent being forced to pick one of the six quadrants of Apples which have been deemed "right" by the lords of Cupertino?
_____________

This shows why Apple can't release OSX as a software product without killing its own hardware lines.

Apple hardware might be at the top of its narrowly defined product niches ("the best 1" thick 17" widescreen laptop"), but they really come up short for many people ("I want a lightweight 12" w/o optical and a really low-power CPU for long battery life").

Oh boy...here we go again with the Apple-bashing sessions by Mr. Shaw...

Why do Windows laptops have "so many" choices? Because they lack exactly what has been praised for so many years about Apple...integration between hardware and software. And because the sampling universe you consider encompasses not 1 maker, but 1000. So it's plain and obvious that you will find what you want amongst such a mind-boggling number of companies that shows you the good, the bad and the ugly.

Apple, as a profit-making company, HAS to decide which products to deploy and when. It cannot check every picky MacRumors fan out there and create a new Performa 7633-X for them (and let me remind you...that was one of the reasons Apple almost sunk back in 90s, with its extensive and chaotic product line).

Apple is extremely careful in designing computers that appeal to the broadest range of consumers...but it cannot satisfy all with its design and pricing paradigms; that's why you may get a Dell or an ugly Gateway, "dude"...feel free to do that.

The "lords" of Cupertino answer, above anything else, to the "lords" called shareholders. So one company cannot give you all the options, because this entails expanded inventories, expanded support lines, and expanded outsourcing requirements.

In conclusion, let's just end this glib criticism for now...Apple is ONE company, and has its production limitations...and even then it still has the best notebooks of the market, no doubt about it.
 
BRLawyer said:
It cannot check every picky MacRumors fan out there and create a new Performa 7633-X for them (and let me remind you...that was one of the reasons Apple almost sunk back in 90s, with its extensive and chaotic product line).
I wouldn't suggest a return to the Performa days, but Apple could make some simple improvements to satisfy more people.
  • Add a mini-tower to the lineup - fill the gap between the constrained mini and the huge PowerMac
  • Add a "small and light" entry to the laptop line (3 lbs or less, no optical)
  • Increase the number of BTO options, rather than all the upselling (if I want a fast laptop, why do I have to have a 17" screen with the faster CPU?)
No explosion of SKUs, just fill a couple of gaping holes and add some flexibility to configurations. The shareholders would love it.


BRLawyer said:
...and even then it still has the best notebooks of the market, no doubt about it.
If you want big-and-heavy, perhaps. If you want small-and-light, nope.
 
AidenShaw said:
I wouldn't suggest a return to the Performa days, but Apple could make some simple improvements to satisfy more people.
  • Add a mini-tower to the lineup - fill the gap between the constrained mini and the huge PowerMac
  • Add a "small and light" entry to the laptop line (3 lbs or less, no optical)
  • Increase the number of BTO options, rather than all the upselling (if I want a fast laptop, why do I have to have a 17" screen with the faster CPU?)
No explosion of SKUs, just fill a couple of gaping holes and add some flexibility to configurations. The shareholders would love it.

If you want big-and-heavy, perhaps. If you want small-and-light, nope.

I wouldn't disagree with your suggestions, Shaw, but it seems like you guys are crying over "unspilled" milk, to say the least. Apple has always offered a fairly good set of computers, ranging from a headless CPU to a big notebook; the only exception is that "minitower" thing, which is yet highly controversial from a marketing point of view.

The important points to be made are:

1) We are, right now, in the middle of the transition to Intel chips, so no conclusions may be drawn yet;

2) Apart from the Pro markets, Apple has ALWAYS advocated for AIOs as the best and simplest solutions for consumers. Unsurprisingly, the Cube fiasco has shown them that mid-level towers might not be the best choice, market-wise.

Besides, if we presume that all lines migrate to Intel by the end of this year, what will we have?

A great performing Mini for households and small offices;
A great performing iMac, for demanding consumers and medium offices;
A powerful MacPro for the traditional pro markets.

Now tell me, why does Apple need to offer a minitower, if they already give you a great little Mini and the best consumer desktop on the planet? I know you will say expandability, but MOST people don't care about that...and if they do, they will buy a MacPro.

3) Ditto for notebooks...let's presume we have 15/17 MBPs and a 12/13 MB, all of them with great Core Duo offerings and good GPUs...subnotebook level? I don't think that's Apple's cup of tea...the Duo Dock is dead long ago, and less than 12" is too small for a screen, not to mention the lack of optical...I don't really see the point.

I remember watching a Chinese classmate working with a tiny Toshiba (or Sony) 10" notebook...boy, was that small or what? No optical drives or anything, and a minuscule screen to do text editing or spreadsheets...no, thanks...the loss of features is not compensated by 2" less in terms of screen real estate...

I know some people want it, but I'd rather have Apple devising a tablet or palmtop, instead of a crippled subnotebook...

4) As for your CTO suggestions, I mostly agree...if this doesn't affect Apple's inventories, it should be offered across the board (especially for notebooks); but again, too much flexibility may be Apple's undoing, as a tip-top 12" MB would cut on the margins of more expensive models...think shareholders, guys, think shareholders...
 
A thought...

I don't know if anybody has brung up the fact that there are expected price cuts in May on the Yonah processors. This is probably why Apple is delaying the announcement of the new MacBooks.

Apple needs to meet the $999 price tag. The 1.83Ghz Yonah T2400 will be the same price as the 1.67Ghz at $241 in May it is expected. This probably means that although we have no confirmation of the exact price reduction expected for the 1.66Ghz, it should be around $200, the same price as the current 1.66Ghz Solo. That would explain why AppleInsider is predicting only Core Duo processors in the notebooks - the Core Solo based on the Pentium M will be phased out effectively in all but the ULV processor options, allowing for the Celeron M Core Solo to move in and replace this market area with much more cost effective, single core Yonah solutions ranging between $80-160 per unit.

The MacBook will not use Celeron M Yonahs, as was shown with the MacMini, where a Pentium D solution would have been much better to opt for, being a cheaper and more powerful alternative but was rejected in favour of the new mobile technology. It is clear that Apple will only use the newest Core technology based on the Pentium M and later Merom/Conroe architectures.

As a result, I think that the MacBook models will probably debut at 1.66/1.83Ghz and the MacBook Pro will start at 2.0Ghz with upto 2.33Ghz BTO Core Duo speed.

As for whether an integrated graphics chipset will be used, it is almost certain and cost dictates that the $999 and probably if offered, $1299 models will use an integrated graphics solution being the 950 or probably as expected, the new 965 iGP with latest instructions.

The only problem really is, what will replace the 12" Powerbook G4. It has been clearly seen on this forum and probably other forums that there is a huge market seeking a portable yet powerful notebook solution that can play a modest range of newly available games. After the announcement of Boot Camp, this list of games is no longer limited to the Mac OS X platform but also the Windows platform. Therefore the inclusion of a dedicated GPU becomes more important.

I personally think the current $1499 PowerBook should be replaced with a $1499 MacBook 13" with at least a X1300 128Mb solution. Whether that is 64Mb dedicated and 64Mb HyperMemory or all 128Mb dedicated is another issue, but games will need a good 128Mb of memory to play OK and with the iGP offerring upto 224Mb of Shared memory for graphics, 64Mb of dedicated may prima facie seem a disadvantage to Pro Users. What I'm saying is a compromise between form factor/power vs price should be reached. The PowerBook G4 12" had some balance, whether this balance will be retained with the announcement of new MacBooks is yet to be seen...
 
BRLawyer said:
Now tell me, why does Apple need to offer a minitower, if they already give you a great little Mini and the best consumer desktop on the planet? I know you will say expandability, but MOST people don't care about that...and if they do, they will buy a MacPro.
Expandability after the sale is one thing. I agree that most people don't make internal changes to their systems.

Flexibility before the sale is another.

A mini-tower would allow for both. Integrated graphics or high end gaming video cards, 1 TB of disk space, more RAM slots.... From the Apple Store, or from Fry's.

The mini does not (locked in integrated graphics, notebook disk, ...)

How often have you seen the "elegant mini" surrounded by a mess of USB drives? Wouldn't a small tower with two disks be prettier?

I'd even suggest two sizes - an SFF and a minitower. (Same mobo to keep costs down, only difference is expansion.) Seems to work for Dell....

optix_149x149.jpg
 
Legacy said:
I don't know if anybody has brung up the fact that there are expected price cuts in May on the Yonah processors. This is probably why Apple is delaying the announcement of the new MacBooks.

Apple needs to meet the $999 price tag. The 1.83Ghz Yonah T2400 will be the same price as the 1.67Ghz at $241 in May it is expected. This probably means that although we have no confirmation of the exact price reduction expected for the 1.66Ghz, it should be around $200, the same price as the current 1.66Ghz Solo. That would explain why AppleInsider is predicting only Core Duo processors in the notebooks - the Core Solo based on the Pentium M will be phased out effectively in all but the ULV processor options, allowing for the Celeron M Core Solo to move in and replace this market area with much more cost effective, single core Yonah solutions ranging between $80-160 per unit.

The MacBook will not use Celeron M Yonahs, as was shown with the MacMini, where a Pentium D solution would have been much better to opt for, being a cheaper and more powerful alternative but was rejected in favour of the new mobile technology. It is clear that Apple will only use the newest Core technology based on the Pentium M and later Merom/Conroe architectures.

As a result, I think that the MacBook models will probably debut at 1.66/1.83Ghz and the MacBook Pro will start at 2.0Ghz with upto 2.33Ghz BTO Core Duo speed.

As for whether an integrated graphics chipset will be used, it is almost certain and cost dictates that the $999 and probably if offered, $1299 models will use an integrated graphics solution being the 950 or probably as expected, the new 965 iGP with latest instructions.

The only problem really is, what will replace the 12" Powerbook G4. It has been clearly seen on this forum and probably other forums that there is a huge market seeking a portable yet powerful notebook solution that can play a modest range of newly available games. After the announcement of Boot Camp, this list of games is no longer limited to the Mac OS X platform but also the Windows platform. Therefore the inclusion of a dedicated GPU becomes more important.

I personally think the current $1499 PowerBook should be replaced with a $1499 MacBook 13" with at least a X1300 128Mb solution. Whether that is 64Mb dedicated and 64Mb HyperMemory or all 128Mb dedicated is another issue, but games will need a good 128Mb of memory to play OK and with the iGP offerring upto 224Mb of Shared memory for graphics, 64Mb of dedicated may prima facie seem a disadvantage to Pro Users. What I'm saying is a compromise between form factor/power vs price should be reached. The PowerBook G4 12" had some balance, whether this balance will be retained with the announcement of new MacBooks is yet to be seen...

You are working off the assumption that Apple is going down to "Fred and Joe's Hardware Shop" and buying the processors off the shelves, and I can guarantee you that isn't happening.

Apple has negoitiated a bulk price for the CPU's, probobly something like 6 months ago and their ship date has NOTHING to do with price. Now availability is another concern, if Intel has manufacturing delay's or shiping delays that could push the launch of a product, but "consumer pricing" for Intel chips is a nonfactor for Apple at this point in determining when to ship. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple already had all their chips for the first run Macbooks already in stock (heck, they may have been in stock for the last month).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.