Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's "entry level" for Apple. Do you see a lower-spec'd, lower-priced laptop in Apple's lineup? Nope.
Apple doesn't bloat its lines with a ton of different options. This frustrates some, helps others - but regardless, that is how it is. They have two main types of laptops, both of which only offer the newest processors (relatively), and are as such, priced accordingly. Companies like Dell offer lower laptops because they can afford to keep older stocks (P4s, CDs). Apple isn't a large enough company to have this type of invetory.
Apple took these awesome new processors that are just 10 months old and put them into a laptop with year and a half old tech! What an amazing update!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!1!
Seriously now, the Napa chipset came out in January 06 and the C2Ds came out in July 06. They could have had this "update" come out last summer! And the base model still doesn't even have a dvd burner. lmao
In good time you will get your precious MB update.
After MBP at WWDC and even still your MB update will not be enough. So just shut up and buy a MBP after WWDC and get over yourself and your unreasonable expectations. Or get a Windoze computer. Those have burners.
Many people still don't understand that the big deal with Macs is the OS. And they can't even release that on time.
I suspect that, given Apple did provide a DVD burner in their base model, there would be an equal number of complaints that Apple should provide a cheaper model without the DVD burner because "I don't need it and don't want to have to pay for something I don't want".
zipzoomfly. RAM prices dropped through the floor this last month. I didn't think they could fall any further so I bought my 2GB's 2 weeks ago at $94 total. Now it's down to $88. Crucial had a deal for $60-something after $20 rebate. Crazy.
Anyway, I'll have to look into the used RAM return thing. I really don't like the thought of good RAM going to waste.
"outlast" is not the same as "outperform"
macs have always been more efficient, and therefore, live longer lives. it's why they hold a good resale value.
the mac that i'm writing this on (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/stats/imac_dv_se_500.html) is nearly 7 years old and has the latest os on it. all i've done is take the ram to 256mb.
please find me a 7 year old pc that will take (at least) xp?
Don't bother getting on my platform. I used to suggest macs to everyone, but there's already too many switchers now. Thus, Félix recommends Windows XP Professional. Vista ain't quite good yet, and XP is great for most. Really, please stay on XP. Virus makers don't need any further incentive to start considering the mac platform.
I'm not too cheap to buy a Macbook Pro, and I don't know what being "cheap" would have to do with that, or even what the MBP has to do with this discussion.
This update is a joke. YOU look like the fool for not just accepting that. No one can seriously say a 160MHz speedbump is a solid upgrade on a six month old system.
And again, that's completely irrelevant. By market standards, $1100-1500 is mid range, not low end. Until Apple becomes the only hardware manufacturer, we can expect that they try to price things competitively.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, which is about the pathetic Macbook update.
Nah. I mean, I'm sure they design it with certain market segments and tasks in mind, but if Intel's parts had been cheaper or it suddenly found a way to quadruple the X3100's power, the MacBook would quickly be 'repurposed'. What a laptop is meant to do is determined by what people want to do with it and the technology available. Given that 'negatives' for this story are running 5-to-1 over 'positives', clearly there's a demand there, and hopefully Apple will be able to satisfy it soon.
However, if you are saying that there's a laptop missing in Apple current line-up then I really don't have an opinion, I'm a "desktop" guy , the only thing I know from a fact is that MacBook buyers would like the option of a 15" screen
Makes the 2.16GHz MBP look poor value for money and the MB better value than before.
If the Macbook didn't have a 13" screen and weak graphics I'd buy one over a MBP.
No way would I buy a MBP now - £520 extra for 15" screen, better but still not great graphics, aluminium casing and a backlit keyboard. Plus, there's clearly some update around the corner.
If the Macbook didn't have a 13" screen and weak graphics I'd buy one over a MBP.
No way would I buy a MBP now - £520 extra for 15" screen, better but still not great graphics, aluminium casing and a backlit keyboard. Plus, there's clearly some update around the corner.
Keep word is NEED. not want. No one here needs it. Especially considering the performance change is minimal.
1. 800mhz so-dimms aren't exactly mainstream, thus expensive.
2. Wasn't Core 2 supposed to solve the heat problem?
3. No, SR does not give you faster processor speeds the processor is a seperate entitty, the penryn set of chips will work with current boards. The system would be slightly faster overall, but SR is a chipset/mainboard change not a CPU.
4. Turbo Memory, http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31976/118/
5. Like I said the X3000/3100 offer minimal update in performance. it is not what some of you are makign it out to be.
6. Boot camp, how?
A 7 year old mac with 256mb of ram isn't what i'd call good enough to run OSX. I have a Mac Mini, Core Duo and 512mb of ram which is significantly more powerful than yours and OSX is a dog on it.
A classic Flame bait post above.
They are trolls because they don't agree with your mind set?
The upgrade is disappointing to me due only to the Intel 950. The X3100 provides a considerable improvement for a consumer-level laptop, and every HP and Dell will soon have it. I don't buy the argument of 'if you want better graphics, get a MBP'. The X3100 is out. It's a consumer-level graphics solution that sucks less. And now, it looks like that less sucky solution won't be available for the next 6 months.
As for the other updates - they're great! The Macbook has just become much better value (the middle config is $400 Singapore cheaper than the prior black model at the same specs, plus includes a CPU speed bump). Argh.. fix the graphics Apple!
As for the other updates - they're great! The Macbook has just become much better value (the middle config is $400 Singapore cheaper than the prior black model at the same specs, plus includes a CPU speed bump). Argh.. fix the graphics Apple!
I imagine the MBP will be updated very soon.
There isn't a lot of difference between the low end MBP and the MacBooks.
Its also been several years since the last redesign of the Macbook Pro too... now that Santa Rosa is here, I can see that the MBP upgrade is in the very near future...
There isn't a lot of difference between the low end MBP and the MacBooks.
Its also been several years since the last redesign of the Macbook Pro too... now that Santa Rosa is here, I can see that the MBP upgrade is in the very near future...
I don't care about the MB. I'll come right out and say that. It does not do what I want it to. It's a consumer computer.
I am getting a MBP. I want to be able to video edit and do graphics and play games and whatever on it. It has what I want. The things that the MB does not that you guys are complaining about. Soooo in the long run.... what you really want in the MB is a MBP. So the simple solution would be to just get the MBP.
Watch who you call a fool.
The MB is a consumer computer. The amount of people buying it do not care about the specs. Those who do..... are getting or already have a MBP.
Have a nice day.
lmao. Dell just released latitudes the other day with Santa Rosa. Is it really unreasonable to expect an update to have new technology instead of technology that is a year old? Lately Apple has been falling behind the competition for it's consumer models. The mini still has a core duo which is over a year old, the macbooks have graphics that are comparable to dedicated graphics cards from 2004. My mid-2005 iBook has a better graphics card than the current macbooks. That's ridiculous.
I feel bad for all the people who are waiting to get a Macbook that has current technology.
If Apple does this to the MBPs too, I'll be pissed. I want my fully 64-bit Crestline Macbook Pro.