Apple Planning Smoother Transitions Between Graphics Processors in Upcoming MacBook Pros?

[Bafflefish]

Name an occasion when Apple introduced a laptop which decreased battery time. To me it seems clear that Apple applies "Pro" to models that would be primarily purchased by people who use it as a tool for whatever they there profession is that they make a living off of . It isn't short for "Video/Media Pro" or "Ultimate Power user Pro" ... just professional. Being a professional don't perclude being on the road or moving around a significant amount of your day and not being a slave to the nearest wall socket. Being a slave to the nearest Wall socket would be more aptly abbreviated as "DTR" desktop replacement rather than "Pro".

Using your viewpoint on how Apple applies the term then, they may as well call the Mac Mini a "pro" device, as well as the Mac Book.

The PowerBook/MacBook Pro line traditionally was aimed towards those users who wanted a greater level of hardware that was typically in a larger form factor. In the current era however, we have multiple MacBook "Pro's" that are more befitting the MacBook's target audience (and, obviously, the 13.3" Pros were, in fact, MacBooks). In my own personal opinion, the onl "Pro" models are those with the discrete graphics options, and even then, Apple's battery life tests do not involve anything beyond basic web surfing and office productivity.

Any video hardware-intensive or processor-intensive application will drastically cut down on Apple's stated battery life, and thus ultimately with the upper-level Pro models, you'll still often be a "slave to a socket".

Apparently, the context is lost on you. This whole thread is about Mac laptops not sony ones. If you think Apple is about to put a blu-ray on the next gen laptops I have a bridge to sell you. I am completely uninterested in whether should or shouldn't put blu-ray in them ( that argument has been beaten far, far , far, far, beyond death on these forums ) , just what they are likely to do given their past behavior and comments.

Do I think Apple is about to put a Blu-Ray drive in the MBPs? Of course not. However, your earlier respond was vaguely worded and open to many interpretations, and I mistook what your intention with it was. It was my error, but make your future posts less vague.

The other part of the context is folks complaining about how the Arrandale IGP won't suffice as a sole solution. Again, really don't care about what folks would do if they were in charge of what Apple's design constraints are, just what Apple is likely to do given past indicators of design choices. The "need" for something faster than an Arrandale IGP could be driven by "need" to render blu-ray video content. If there is no content to render then that "need" isn't a design constraint.

Apple has previously stated that Intel's IGP solutions were less than adequate, and ultimately was one reason for why they went with the 9400M. Arrandale is a step in the right direction, but the performance still isn't there and I highly doubt Apple will go with it, at least for the MacBook Pro line.

Just to make it crystal clear, what that quote denotes is that the reviewer is saying that the Arrandale IGP is sufficient for most everyday situations. That there is a much smaller class of exceptional cases where "need" something faster.

"Everyday needs" is subjective. Would it probably suffice for the MacBook? Sure. Maybe even the 13.3" MBPs, since they're Pros in name only and realistically belong in a lower category.

" the core was developed by National Semiconductor into the Geode line of processors, which was subsequently sold to Advanced Micro Devices." They stole the idea form AMD.

Uh, no. The Cyrix MediaGX line long predated any control AMD had over it. MediaGX was originally developed by Cyrix, which eventually merged with National Semiconductor. National Semiconductor renamed it into the Geode line, which was eventually sold to AMD. This all occurred over several years, but Cyrix most definitely did not steal the idea from AMD.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Using your viewpoint on how Apple applies the term then, they may as well call the Mac Mini a "pro" device, as well as the Mac Book.

The PowerBook/MacBook Pro line traditionally was aimed towards those users who wanted a greater level of hardware that was typically in a larger form factor. In the current era however, we have multiple MacBook "Pro's" that are more befitting the MacBook's target audience (and, obviously, the 13.3" Pros were, in fact, MacBooks). In my own personal opinion, the onl "Pro" models are those with the discrete graphics options, and even then, Apple's battery life tests do not involve anything beyond basic web surfing and office productivity.

Any video hardware-intensive or processor-intensive application will drastically cut down on Apple's stated battery life, and thus ultimately with the upper-level Pro models, you'll still often be a "slave to a socket".


Do I think Apple is about to put a Blu-Ray drive in the MBPs? Of course not. However, your earlier respond was vaguely worded and open to many interpretations, and I mistook what your intention with it was. It was my error, but make your future posts less vague.


Apple has previously stated that Intel's IGP solutions were less than adequate, and ultimately was one reason for why they went with the 9400M. Arrandale is a step in the right direction, but the performance still isn't there and I highly doubt Apple will go with it, at least for the MacBook Pro line.



"Everyday needs" is subjective. Would it probably suffice for the MacBook? Sure. Maybe even the 13.3" MBPs, since they're Pros in name only and realistically belong in a lower category.


Uh, no. The Cyrix MediaGX line long predated any control AMD had over it. MediaGX was originally developed by Cyrix, which eventually merged with National Semiconductor. National Semiconductor renamed it into the Geode line, which was eventually sold to AMD. This all occurred over several years, but Cyrix most definitely did not steal the idea from AMD.

When AMD bought Citirix and all of their IP became AMD's

 

[cmaier]

When AMD bought Citirix and all of their IP became AMD's

AMD didn't buy Cyrix.