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
Ah. I kind of know what you mean. I can definitely tell the difference between having no laptop and having my iBook with me while walking to classes and stuff (over a mile from one side of campus to the other and we only have ten minutes). It's just under 5 pounds, but it can still get heavy.
I did it a couple of times with my crappy monster dell the school insisted all students bought until i said **** it and bought a used ibook.
I don't really understand your response... I wasn't either defending or attacking Apple's decisions, merely responding to an earlier poster who claimed there was room on the MacBook's logic board for a graphics chip, which there clearly isn't...
LOL $2k more.
MacBook Pro as I would buy it = $3,096.95 +tax
MacBook as I would buy it = $1,798.00 +tax
difference = $1,298.95
Excuse me for exaggerating a bit, but that's crazy! Just for the record i said ALMOST
I'm just using your response as an example as to how off track the whole subject has gotten, and how all of the little technical differences really mean squat when it comes to real world experiences of the product.
Yet somehow other 13.3 manufacturers manage it like the Sony C and ZS series. However I would have been happy with decent integrated graphics.
And I shudder to think it has come to that, when an Apple computer doesn't even have a best integrated graphics.
this sums it up correctly
All whiners and moaners............please re-read this intelligent post.
Trout
All whiners and moaners............please re-read this intelligent post.
Trout
What are you talking about? The GPU has no bearing on form factor at all, Apple engineers are pretty good and putting units together. The Sony 11.1" ultraportable has a 256MB GPU inside and is smaller and lighter than a MB, and the 12" PB had a graphics card as well.
Apple's choice to not include a graphics card as an option in the MB has nothing to do with price, form factor, or any other excuse like that. They could give you the option of a graphics card if they wanted do--but they DON'T want to. Their thinking is that if you need a GPU, you should get a MBP instead.
Personally, I think this is a mistake on their part, since you can get cheap MB-priced PCs with nice graphics cards, but that's the decision Apple has made thus far. I hope they change their minds--if they do, they could get quite a few first-time switchers and destroy the antiquated and harmful idea that "Macs are not for gamers."
I agree with some, disagree with others
The updates are not all that great, but it's still a great deal for what you get in a MacBook vs. a P.C. (piece of crap) laptop of the same tech specs. iLife and OS X being virus free are worth every penny you spend over a PC. It's still a bummer that these don't have LED displays. Oh well, hopefully the MacBook Pros will.
The updates are not all that great, but it's still a great deal for what you get in a MacBook vs. a P.C. (piece of crap) laptop of the same tech specs. iLife and OS X being virus free are worth every penny you spend over a PC. It's still a bummer that these don't have LED displays. Oh well, hopefully the MacBook Pros will.
According to the government's fuzzy math inflation dropped today thanks to Apple.
More HD capacity + faster processors for same price = lower inflation
It looks like Apple is going to update to Santa Rosa with Penryn. Right now the black MacBook could of had 2GB of ram but it's fine.
Intelligent now. Intelligent in 6+ months if Apple are still peddling a non-SR notebook? Not so much.
And that's what 99% of you are missing. Yes the update is alright now, but this is the spec we'll be stuck with for a while. In a few months that old motherboard with it's slow bus and an ancient GPU are going to be a joke.
I do believe that the socket-P CPUs are cheaper than the old ones as well even if the SR chipset is slightly more expensive (is it?). So price isn't a reason not to put SR in the MBs.
Just a quick question...
Exactly how long do you plan on keeping your MacBook if/when you decide to purchase one?
Hickman
Thanks, I'm at a loss of exactly how many apple designers and engineers we have here in the forums. I am amazed you have so much time between your busy schedule at apple to inform us of exactly what apple is capable of!
/sarcasm
Look, you have no idea what they can, and can't do with the current setup, so stop pretending as if you have some inside knowledge of their capabilities, it's ludicrous.
They made decisions for which features to include by what they thought the consumers would appreciate.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THEY HIT A HOME RUN.
The integrated graphics card is more than adequate for pretty much EVERY task the MB is expected to do, besides pro apps, and games.
If you need a pro app, buy a PRO machine.
If you need games, by a GAMING pc.
You may think that the idea of not catering to gamers is antiquated, but gamers are only a small area of the market, and Apple has chosen not to cater to them. If you don't like it, then a mac isn't the machine for you. I don't think apple needs to be apologetic about that.
Comparison??????Not even close.
Yes, the update is skimpier than anticipated (maybe some shouldn't take "rumors" as facts), being as Mac seems a little behind on some aspects like the DVD Combo on the base version and maybe a better GPU would be nice, but in any case see this:
2.16Ghz (big, better than most pc on the market)
120 GB HD
1G Ram
8xSuperdrive
13.3" glossy lcd
GMA 950 (pretty standard for a 13.3" - most PC's have the same, not all but most)
And (student discount) a warranty of $183.
YOU SHOW ME A PC WITH THESE SPECS, ESPECIALLY 2.16 GHZ CORE 2 DUO,
FOR $1,200, that outweighs even MAC OS X, then I will stay with pc,
But I highly doubt that any Pc has a 2.16 Ghz INTEL duo 2 core processor which is 13.3" for $1200 (student price), and yes I am factoring student discounts into the mix, when it's all said and done, if you go PC then your really going to miss out, have fun with windows.
Yes, the update is skimpier than anticipated (maybe some shouldn't take "rumors" as facts), being as Mac seems a little behind on some aspects like the DVD Combo on the base version and maybe a better GPU would be nice, but in any case see this:
2.16Ghz (big, better than most pc on the market)
120 GB HD
1G Ram
8xSuperdrive
13.3" glossy lcd
GMA 950 (pretty standard for a 13.3" - most PC's have the same, not all but most)
And (student discount) a warranty of $183.
YOU SHOW ME A PC WITH THESE SPECS, ESPECIALLY 2.16 GHZ CORE 2 DUO,
FOR $1,200, that outweighs even MAC OS X, then I will stay with pc,
But I highly doubt that any Pc has a 2.16 Ghz INTEL duo 2 core processor which is 13.3" for $1200 (student price), and yes I am factoring student discounts into the mix, when it's all said and done, if you go PC then your really going to miss out, have fun with windows.
Please provide one quote I made that demonizes Apple. I merely pointed out that I was just disappointed based on my personal situation, i.e., needing a little more than the average joe, but not expecting a prosumer laptop.
I never once said "ZOMG!! Appel is teh suX0rs becuz tehy sed tehy make MacB00ks for teh gamez and tehy don't! WTFLOLBBQ!!!111oneoneone." I know it's a low-end laptop. But my point is still valid: the GMA950 chip is an outdated graphics chip. The PowerBooks from 2005 had a better gfx chip than the 950.
Back off the venom, I just said I was disappointed. I didn't demonize anyone.
-p-
Haha, indeed. Is that really the point though? I'm talking about the point of purchase in 2 or 3 months time, at which point the MacBook will probably have the worst GPU of any computer being sold.
The x3100 is a HUGE leap over the GMA 950, once Intel release drivers enabling hardware T&L it should be plenty good enough to run WoW which is the only game I need my MB for.
2TALLYAWESOME said:
Actually yes they do. They say the MB can do EVERYTHING. I'm going to assume that EVERYTHING includes games. Or should we be using the "Apple approved" dictionary in which "everything" doesn't include games?
Unfortunately, just because Intel announces a new product doesn't mean that its available in unlimited quantities at the same cheap price for everyone...the industry simply doesn't work that way.
A new product demands a premium early on, and Intel knows that - - they'll clearly put the squeeze on because its in the interests of their stockholders. There's a lot of room for horse-trading here, and we simply don't know what Intel was asking of their buyers for the competitive advantage to be first in the (larger scale) delivery que.
BTW, do note that being absolutely first isn't necessarily as big of a deal for Apple as it is for HP, Dell, etc...as such, Apple can say "No Thanks" to the price arm-twisting and wait for the initial rush to subside, which benefits them (and us) with lower costs.
In an ideal world, it would be nice if it was cost-effective to do both.
But just for giggles, let's assume that they did what you inferrentially seem to want, namely cut off the current production ASAP and get rolling with the SR.
Running with a lot of assumptions for numbers, the bottom line assumption is that the new MacBook results in the current MacBook product line being curtailed ahead of schedule...and contract commitments. This results in Apple not wanting the products that they already are under contract to buy with their parts suppliers and assembler. Let's assume that the discrepency is 1.5 million units.
And let's assume that Apple simply buys their way out of this problem:
Step I: Apple honors their parts suppliers contracts. At $400/unit worth of unwanted motherboards, slower CPUs, cases, etc, this is a cash outlay of $600 million. They'll use 5% of this for warranty repairs and have to fire-sale off the rest, since they can't just bury it in a landfill (insert Lisa / Greenpeace joke here).
Step II: Apple renegotiates with their prime who's doing the assembly. The assembler normally got $150/unit, but protests an immediate shutdown (workers contracts, etc), and demands that they deliver another 500K units, at full price, then 50% of the remaining 1M shortfall. Cost to Apple is a quick $125M, but the Prime also wants to remind Apple to not bring them these sorts of headaches, so the new contract carries a clause that the next MacBook assembly contract will have a 1M unit assembly before shutdown and they are to get 100% of the shortfall if Apple does this to them again.
(If you don't think this can happen, you've never negotiated contracts, Son)
Okay, so far Apple has paid $725M out of pocket. There's also some design developer costs back at 1 Infinite Loop that didn't get amortized across the total production volume either, so let's round all of these miscellaneous costs off at $25M, to make the total a cool $750M...cash out of pocket.
Now that we have an idea of the costs to Apple, how are they going to pay for them?
Let's ignore the cost of money (interest). If Apple pays for it with a "push forward" expense onto future products, they append this expense onto the costs of the new MacBook, so we need to estimate how many of those that they're going to sell. If we assume its going to be 5M units over the next 3 years, that would mean that this little "Yikes!" event is going to add $150 to the cost of these future machines.
At which point 1000 posters at MacRumors would bitterly complain about this cost increase
The bottom line is that its hard to simply "pull the plug" on an assembly line without looking at all of the cost reprocussions. The fixed costs that go into a manufacturing line are rarely trivial these days. For example, the new Chip facility that IBM announced for New York State was announced to cost $2.5 Billion...
-hh
Ok, you made a snarky sarcastic comment about how it must be your fault you are a gamer.
The point is; that yes, it is your fault if you can't find a mac that suits your needs, because despite the fact the mac isn't meant for you, you are still expecting it to be built to your standards.
So what if the powerbooks had a better gfx card? It was a pro machine, and the macbook is a consumer machine, they are in completely different leagues, and designed to be that way.
In Soviet Russia computer plays you!
So we should change ourselves and our usage to suit Apples product range? That comment is beyond belief.
Sure, but SR has just been launched, and it represents close to NOTHING in terms of gains to normal users...the next MBPs will get it, not MBs which were already due for an update some months ago.
That's why I said "onboard or separate"...Apple can improve the MB's video without relying on another damned Intel buzzname...just stick some low-end GPU and I am fine. NOBODY will care about improved front-side bus or whatever...MB users just need a slightly better GPU, nothing else.