Apple Releases New MacBooks

[localoid]

... Seriously though you should take a plunge into Linux, especially if you work for your dollar. You will get your hardware at a much lower price and that price will include current hardware not stuff that is 12 to 15 months old. With Linux you get really close to having everything that Apple can offer up less the restrictions and controlled environment. ...

I took the plunge some 12 years ago into Linux. Linux has helped me to make a living since that time. But I use Linux server applications (only.)

In the server world, Linux is hard to beat. It's rock solid and dirt cheap. As far as the Linux desktop goes, it's come a long way. But OS X desktop is light years ahead of desktop Linux. Sorry, but its true. You can't get much of anything in the way of commercial software for the Linux desktop, and while many of the free offerings such as Gimp are impressive, Gimp isn't Photoshop.

I run Linux desktop on several systems. But when it comes time to do much of my paid work, it's not practical to try to do it in Linux. Time is money.

 

[robby818]

Apple would never release Santa Rosa MacBooks first. It is not the way the company works. We that have been using Macs for a while know that. This update allows them to clear out the MacBook Pro parts bin. Apple does the same thing with the Mini. They use it to clear out old MacBook parts when it is updated. Macbook Pro will be updated first. Maybe even the Ultra Portable will come out. Then in August or September the Santa Rosa Macbooks will come out. I did not make the rules Apple did. So all of you newbies that are upset, calm down and understand Macbook is Apple's base laptop. It will always be a bit behind MacBook Pro and always lack the bells and whistles. It is the price you pay to use OS X. You can argue specs from all of the other companies. The fastest parts in the world and then run Vista? That should cost you the 15% speed increase if your lucky answering all of the messages and popups and problems.

I think a Santa Rosa Macbook following that quickly on the heels of the Santa Rosa Macbook Pro isn't likely to happen. I think Apple will want to differentiate the two prodcut lines for a longer time and keep the performance gap large enough so that more people buy the Pro line at least until next year.

When Apple switched to intel that transition really impacted Apple's product cycles. Apple isnt as predictable as it once was. And factor in the other products that Apple sells and needs to work into the release schedule and it's getting harder and harder to predict what and when Apple is going to update with respect to desktops & laptops.

 

[Val-kyrie]

And you guys do realise that this update will be the MB for the next 6+ months? Not using SR may not seem too bad now, but in 3-4 months when EVERY other laptop will be shipping with it then it may be a big deal.

I wouldn't expect this revision/update to last beyond Leopard's introduction in October, so 6 months max for this model. However, I agree that this may pale compared to other edu offers, especially if a school offers both a MB (with a GMA 950) and a Dell (with an X3000). Some schools only sold the Core Duo model MB through the school this year too, though.

 

[wizard]

If today's glass seems only "half-full," then maybe you should try starting out with a smaller glass at the beginning of each day.

Maybe, Just Maybe!

The problem is I spent 12 hours at work today and never got a chance to think about what was up with Apple. Frankly they where not a good twelve hours.

In any event, I do have the ability to keep up with technology by virtue of my job. More than a couple of trade magazines cross over my desk. To be honest you develop certain expectations for what should be in a PC at certain price points. This release was just what was need to push me over the edge as it is anything but suitable for its price point.

I doubt that I will wake up tomorrow thinking any better about this. When Apple delivered their Intel hardware I thought they had gotten over themselves and their seeming need to dick with the marketplace. With OS/X becoming a very good alternative OS things where looking rosy. Now Apple have burned any credit they have built up, it will be interesting to see how well they sell after a month or two.

In any event I won't be buying this rev. Maybe the rumored "thin" machine will be a better value. I suspect though that Apple will find themselves having to do some damage control in the near future, in my mind this rev is that bad.

Dave

 

[SkyBell]

Wow, I'm surprised people think they need a GB of RAM to do simple things like browse the net and write a paper (coughflopticalcubecough )

I play Halo on my 800 MHZ iBook G3 with 256 MB of RAM flawlessly, with iTunes providing music.

256 MB is enough for browseing the net, emailing, light gaming and word documents.

512 MB is good for all of the above, medium gaming, light-medium video and audio editing.

1 GB is good for all of the above, and medium-heavy gaming, medium-heavy audio vieo editing.

2 GB good for all of the above, heavy video editing, heavy gaming and heavy audio editing.


This has been "Cassie's guide to RAM"

 

[localoid]

But sometimes eye candy can also be useful. Simple, quick, unobtrusive animations can make a computer easier on the eyes. For instance, the Genie Effect allows you to note very easily where on the dock the window is going - helpful if you have plenty of windows. It, versus the scale, may also help act as a metaphor of "stashing away."

Same goes for just nice-looking skins. It helps users see things more easily. The problem is, too many companies add obtrusive effects that while pretty, end up simply slowing things down. Unobtrusive, though useful, effects, are a good thing, as is good artwork for the OS skin. (Granted, this is all my opinion)

Seriously. I have multiple windows open, but I don't need a 3D effect to "help me" do my work. If I even notice an app's "skin", it's when I'm talking a brief pause before starting a new task. Otherwise, I'm too busy (actually doing something) to notice.

I don't need the machine to entertain me via some cheesy 3D transition effect. I got over it. A long time ago.

 

[st000]

Dear Apple

Dear Apple,

I have $2000. I will buy a notebook with a decent screen (130 dpi) and a decent graphics card. I am not a gamer.
Please let me give you my money.

thanks.

 

[Rocketman]

Another thing people are disregarding or downplaying is the 802.11n and BT+EDR antennas. I recalll when the MacPro came out with that stuff, you could BTO it for $79 but if you were silly enough to not order it installed, and wanted to add it later the cost was something like $200 just for the parts.

So there is a $80-200 added value in these new MB''s just in wireless support at the SAME PRICE. For years you could not get any wireless in any portable without buying a $100 card (now they are $29) and having them installed because they were positioned so precariously.

Those days are over to. Now the cards are included in the price.

The $1099 price no less.

Rocketman

 

[Chemnerd426]

Just a thought.

​

Hi, first post here but i've been browsing the forums for quite some time (around 2 years)

​

Ive been noticing people throwing the words "casual" and "pro" around, yes I understand the actual definition of them and their applications/purpose within the mac line (Love my 12 inch powerbook) but lets face it, everyone seems to have a different arbitrary definition and view point to what the difference of the products are.

​

Straight to the point, one is consumer and one is pro yes, but the way they are applied seems to be a touch murky. When does "Casual" mean "non gaming".... Casual to me would mean just that, kick back relax and play a game (I am a VERY light gamer but when i wish to play I simply wish to play). Then you have someone playing WoW on the MBP... but i digress

​

Just seems to be two camps to this, one whom basically says the Macbook is fine as is and another that says the graphics needs to be upgraded (neglecting any fanaticism). Get over it, the fact is, most of us DO NOT WANT a MBP in the macbook enclosure, we do wish to reserve the desire to have a somewhat updated card regardless if it isnt much of an improvement.

​

There leads to another conflict of interest, the general feel is (and i seem to imagine its apples feel) that any really potent upgrade to the Macbook would hurt MBP sales but here is some food for thought........ Ill dig for the links.

​

I coulda sworn somewhere that asus was coming out with NON SR laptops WITH DX10 cards, now here is something to potentially chew on.

​

Apple offers a Macbook with say, an 8400 GPU (64bit or 128bit)
BUT, without the SR update, now right off the bat we would see a product differentiation between PRO and CONSUMER, a not so crippled GPU (not near a 2600 ASSUMING thats what goes in the pro)

​

THEN leave all the SR goodies for the MPB, voila. We have a LARGE product differentiation, while the MB crowd has the option for a GPU that doesnt suck as badly, win win for both sides.

​

In all honesty i'd dig on that as a BTO even if it was a tad on the pricey side. But thats just from the point of view, back to cleaning my beakers......

 

[..........?]

1) macbook is a consumer notebook computer so it does not need a powerful GPU. If you need a powerful GPU, you must be using graphic program, video editing or gamer. So a macbook is not a computer you should be using. The intel graphic is capable to do normal things like listen to audio, use iphoto, capable to playback High Definition content to 1080P do homwork, surf the internet and use microsoft office.

2)Black macbook is more expensive because how they are position in the market. The low end macbook is for education uses (high school, university user who need a cheap). middle macbook is for normal consumers and black macbook is position as a high end macbook for less demanding pros who do not need the GPU for graphic, and video editing.

3)IF you are a real gamer then you know the limits of a intel GPU and not be stupid to think that you can play high end games on a macbook. The macbook can play current generation games with no problem just use the average setting not turn on everything to high.

4) the current macbook is quite good in term of value. Don't compare the macbook to cheap walmart stuff since those notebook always use stuff from 2 to 3 generation old tech or use low end stuff. Macbook uses component from current generation of computer tech and always the middle end stuff. Santa Rosa is not current generation. It is next generation stuff.

 

[Eidorian]

1) macbook is a consumer notebook computer so it does not need a powerful GPU. If you need a powerful GPU, you must be using graphic program, video editing or gamer. So a macbook is not a computer you should be using. The intel graphic is capable to do normal things like listen to audio, use iphoto, capable to playback High Definition content to 1080P do homwork, surf the internet and use microsoft office.

"powerful GPU" - lol Geforce 7300

"graphic program" - 2D work, wut? (hey if it's Photoshop.)

"video editing" - maybe if you're using Motion

"High Definition content to 1080P" - CPU bound

Sims 2 people, please...That's HARDCORE GAMIMG, right?

2)Black macbook is more expensive because how they are position in the market. The low end macbook is for education uses (high school, university user who need a cheap). middle macbook is for normal consumers and black macbook is position as a high end macbook for less demanding pros who do not need the GPU for graphic, and video editing.

And you can't fully use iDVD, much less burn a data DVD.

3)IF you are a real gamer then you know the limits of a intel GPU and not be stupid to think that you can play high end games on a macbook. The macbook can play current generation games with no problem just use the average setting not turn on everything to high.

If the software mode is compatible. If you enjoy 640 x 480 with what you might call textures.

 

[localoid]

... In any event I won't be buying this rev. Maybe the rumored "thin" machine will be a better value. I suspect though that Apple will find themselves having to do some damage control in the near future, in my mind this rev is that bad.

The Core Duo to Core 2 Duo "refresh" of about 6 months ago wasn't all that different was it? You got about 10% greater performance (in general) which is about the same as going from 1.83GHz to 2.0GHz (via today's upgrade.) But the C2D upgrade gave even more (of a performance increase) on some apps, like most multimedia apps (because of the new SSE instructions of the C2D). But likewise, from today's "refresh" you'd get >10% on some apps, due to going to a 4MB L2 cache on the 2GHz vs. the 2MB cache on the 1.8.

Overall, I see it as more of a price reduction than an upgrade. And that's not all bad, in my mind. Apple's Macbooks, when first introduced, were a great deal for their price/configuration compared to other company's notebooks. The same thing could be said of the C2D Macbooks. Today's "upgrade" puts the Macbook line back in step with prices of the current offerings from other notebook makers. Currently, most of the notebooks in the current market aren't Santa Rosa based.

In say another six months, I'd think Apple would upgrade the Macbooks again. Just before Christmas perhaps(?) But this kind of upgrade, about every six months, is what the Intel world has always been about.

What can I say? Buy anything today and in six months, something better (and cheaper) will be out. But that's really a good thing, isn't it? I guess that's why some claim -- it's the best of times (and yet the worst of times.)

 

[Val-kyrie]

I understand and agree with your dismay with the GMA 950. I would have much preferred the X3000 as well; however, I think you are missing the bigger picture. All of these updates have been in line with current technology--even (arguably) this one. Santa Rosa has little to offer to the Mac OS until Leopard, then we will see Intel Turbo Memory, LED screens on all portables, and better integrated graphics for Core Animation. Otherwise, Apple is giving us what Intel gives them--EVOLUTIONARY steps. SR is being implemented across the summer by most OEMs and Apple will have it across the mobile lines shortly after/alongside Leopard in October (just after they have cleared out last year's inventory on the students). The next big step for any laptop apart from LED backlighting will be the use of Penryn with the Montevina platform. Montevina will bring DDR3 support, 10 pixel shaders (instead of 8), WiMAX, Gen 2 LAN, and Intel Turbo Memory 2.0. Penryn will be a boost even for SR with its many architectural tweaks--it is technically a revision to Merom. If I were buying a MBP, I would wait for Penryn with Montevina; however, I can't wait that long, so I will buy the first hardware revision MB after Leopard's debut and upgrade with the following Mac OS in three or four years when Intel has yet another significant architectural shift.

Exactly right. Welcome to another 6 months of the GMA 950.

Look at where we've come in a year since the macbook was introduced:
CD --> C2D
1.83/2.0 --> 2.0/2.16
512 RAM (2 GB max) --> 1 GB RAM (2 GB max)
60/80 GB HD --> 80/120/160 GB HD
GMA 950 --> GMA 950
802.11G --> 802.11N
Same prices, same (other) features, same software.

Those of you who are familiar with my posts know that I love Apple and am very rarely on the "bash apple" bandwagon. I'm pretty much always looking to buy a new mac, just because I get a kick out of it and am crazy like that. My family and friends laugh at me because I'm so fast to change computers. But honestly, I've yet to feel the slightest urge to upgrade my macbook at either this or the previous update.

It's time to call a spade a spade. This is laughable progress for a year's time, and what's worse, I'm sure this is where we're going to stand 3, 4, even 6 months from now (MB updates so far have been May/November/May).

Very, very poor decision not to go with SR and the x3000 graphics chipset. These laptops are targeted, to a large degree, at students, and students play games. No, the x3000 wouldn't let you crank up the settings on Oblivion, but it would be a huge step up from the 950, which was unacceptably poor when it was first used in the core duos a year ago.

Oh well. Just makes it that much easier to be happy with my core duo.

 

[shigzeo]

with you on that one!

why buy a console? i have no tv, don't care to have one, no speakers, no sofa and no need for that loud vacuum of a system the 360.

casual gaming on a macbook only goes so far as very casual games from 3 or 4 years ago. is privateer available for 360? i think not, nor any console for that matter. neither is a good version of x2 or x3. none of these games are good for console and will not run on this machine though they are 3 or 4 years old. shame too..

 

[Tara Davis]

Idiots. Complete idiots. Not Apple, the whiners.

Everybody who has called this a "160 MHz upgrade" has revealed themselves to be UTTERLY CLUELESS about the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs. You can safely ignore everything those people have to say forever.

They moved up a generation in CPU chipset.
They moved up a generation in wireless networking.
They bumped up the RAM and hard drive space.
They kept the same price.

That, my friends, is a SOLID incremental update to what was already a very nice line of consumer laptops.

Anyone who says otherwise is a pointless troll.

If you want to play games, you can buy an iMac at about the same price which is much better set up for gaming.

The MacBooks are so you can WORK on things from the comfort of your favorite neighborhood coffee house, and for that task, they are awesome.

I <3 my MacBook, and it's a year older than the ones they just released.

 

[Eidorian]

They moved up a generation in CPU chipset.
They moved up a generation in wireless networking.
They bumped up the RAM and hard drive space.
They kept the same price.

That, my friends, is a SOLID incremental update to what was already a very nice line of consumer laptops.

Anyone who says otherwise is a pointless troll.

But the killer for a sale and the biggest bottleneck in an otherwise good layout is still the video card. You could throw in the biggest hard drive and a Core 2 Duo 7600G into a Macbook. It doesn't mean that it'll be better at playing a casual 3D game. Which I've already defined as well...

That, my friends, is a SOLID incremental update to what was already a very nice line of consumer laptops.

Anyone who says otherwise is a pointless troll.

If you want to play games, you can by an iMac at about the same price which is much better set up for gaming.

The MacBooks are so you can WORK on things from the comfort of your favorite neighborhood coffee house, and for that task, they are awesome.

I <3 my MacBook, and it's a year older than the ones they just released.

Get me my battery, I'm taking my iMac for a stroll!

Any laptop can be used an your coffee house to do work.

 

[Val-kyrie]

I think the current proximity of the MB to the MBP is intentional to relieve the strain on the low MBP inventory. (Perhaps it is the inventory and not the release of SR that dictated the update?) Anyone who watches the industry even casually would hold off until June for the update to the MBP, and anyone looking at both could be swayed to the MB for the moment.

Well, I'm not reading through 14 pages, so I'm sorry if this has been said: but all those waiting/hoping for new MBPs should be THRILLED with this announcement today. Why? Because there is absolutely NO way that Apple is going to leave the line like this for very long (a bigger HD standard in the blackbook than in the base MBP? and a faster superdrive?), so we know new ones are on the way. Also, because they didn't just update the whole line today indicates to me that WWDC is going to be bringing some exciting announcements for the MBP line - which Steve is going to want to uncover himself.

 

[wizard]

1) macbook is a consumer notebook computer so it does not need a powerful GPU. If you need a powerful GPU, you must be using graphic program, video editing or gamer. So a macbook is not a computer you should be using. The intel graphic is capable to do normal things like listen to audio, use iphoto, capable to playback High Definition content to 1080P do homwork, surf the internet and use microsoft office.

I'm beginning to think that there are exceptionally dense people logged tonight. The x3100 that is part of Santa Rosa is not a high performance GPU. It does offer significant advantage over the older line and that is what people are concerned about.

Santa Rosa's embedded GPU offers real advantages and is still very much entry level in the range, as Santa Rosa would be connected up to a discreet GPU on high performance laptops. Much as we currently do with MB and MBP.

Like it or not you are mistaken as to how much the current GPU can do for video decode, the X3100 in Santa Rosa would be a big step forward here. It would allow the playback of much more complex decoding with a far lower CPU load than what is now possible.

In any event there are many features in Santa Rosa that would appeal to the average consumer.

2)Black macbook is more expensive because how they are position in the market. The low end macbook is for education uses (high school, university user who need a cheap). middle macbook is for normal consumers and black macbook is position as a high end macbook for less demanding pros who do not need the GPU for graphic, and video editing.

It is all about marketing and the exploitation of a certain segment of society.

3)IF you are a real gamer then you know the limits of a intel GPU and not be stupid to think that you can play high end games on a macbook. The macbook can play current generation games with no problem just use the average setting not turn on everything to high.

I'm not sure why everybody wants to pull this discussion into the realm of gaming. It has nothing to do with gaming as the X3100 IS NOT A GAMING GPU.

4) the current macbook is quite good in term of value.

Hell no!!!! not even close.
Here is an HP example for 999 http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...ch=true&a1=From+price&v1=$800-$1000&tab=specs
for around 1200 this http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...ch=true&a1=From+price&v1=Over+$1000&tab=specs

These are Santa Rosa chip sets on laptops with reasonable feature sets. They don't take advantage of everything that SR can offer but I don't expect the MB to take advantage of everything the SR offers either.

Don't compare the macbook to cheap walmart stuff since those notebook always use stuff from 2 to 3 generation old tech or use low end stuff.

Argue about what you can get in the same price range. There are always lower cost suppliers, but when talking about value you have to focus on what the money buys.

Macbook uses component from current generation of computer tech and always the middle end stuff. Santa Rosa is not current generation. It is next generation stuff.

That is ridiculous, SR is a release product there is no next generation about it.

Dave

 

[localoid]

...In any event, I do have the ability to keep up with technology by virtue of my job. More than a couple of trade magazines cross over my desk. To be honest you develop certain expectations for what should be in a PC at certain price points. This release was just what was need to push me over the edge as it is anything but suitable for its price point....

Yeah, I know what you mean. Anyone can build a PC cheaper, and in the process get more up to date technology. However, you won't get OS X (legally) for such a system. Not having OS X is the deal breaker for me. It's the (virtually perfect) Linux desktop I'd always wanted, for years, to avoid Windows and all it's many Windows-like "features."

I'd pay $500 for OS X, if it'd run on even a very restricted variety of hardware. Heck, I paid about that for Windows NT 4.0 Workstation some years back, simply because I needed something more stable than Windows 98 offered.

But today, since I can't buy OS X (for non Apple hardware), I find myself being forced into viewing it all as a trade-off. I end up willing to settle for slightly less up-to-date hardware simply because the OS is so much better for my needs than Windows, or even Linux.

 

[Val-kyrie]

I hope you are right that Penryn will be shipping in volume in 6 months. This would allow Apple to pair Penryn with SR for the Leopard debut! This would be a dream come true and validate my suggestion that Apple might skip the SR/gen 2 Merom update.

The "one week" quote is the unrealistic part.

Intel sends samples out to customers long before the press conference that marks the "introduction" of a part. Volume shipments start many weeks before the press conference. How do you think that HP and Lenovo and Dell have kit to sell on announcement day?

I was playing with a couple of Penryn systems last night. They're here and real, even though they are half a year from volume shipment.

Apple could have shipped SR laptops last week, but instead there is this strange, minor update.

 

[Eidorian]

I'm beginning to think that there are exceptionally dense people logged tonight. The x3100 that is part of Santa Rosa is not a high performance GPU. It does offer significant advantage over the older line and that is what people are concerned about.

How many times have I mentioned the Geforce 7300? It's more then enough for casual gaming and a big step over the GMA 950.

Let's throw in even more synthetic benchmarking.

Entry Level 3D capable GPU for an entry level Mac laptop.

I'm not sure why everybody wants to pull this discussion into the realm of gaming. It has nothing to do with gaming as the X3100 IS NOT A GAMING GPU.

It has hardware shaders though...

Who said the GMA X3100 was a gaming GPU?

 

[tschoftner]

new MBPs??

I just hope that will release new MBPs maybe next Tuesday !
Who knows?
If not I'm waiting for WWDC with Steve to announce them on stage, after all the pro line does suit for the developers conference.
Also hope they will feature backlight (LED) displays and, of course, Santa Rosa!
These are my thoughts on the macbook update which is, to my mind, a good and decent update, after all the macbook represents the lower end of the consumer line.
I think have done a good job with this update.

rulez!!

 

[wizard]

Everybody who has called this a "160 MHz upgrade" has revealed themselves to be UTTERLY CLUELESS about the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo CPUs. You can safely ignore everything those people have to say forever.

You best look in the mirror as for the most part that is all this is a 160MHz update.

They moved up a generation in CPU chipset.

Are you sure about that? Because everything is telling me that it is the same old chipset. It is exactly why everybody is complaining. A real update to this machine would have left us with a X3100 which would have been a generation update.

They moved up a generation in wireless networking.

Bumped up to a generation that hasn't stabilized. Not that I want to discount the feature but it doesn't significantly impact the price of the hardware.

They bumped up the RAM and hard drive space.

Which was and is a problem on Apple hardware. That is RAM and HD allocations behind the market for the price of the machine.

They kept the same price.

That, my friends, is a SOLID incremental update to what was already a very nice line of consumer laptops.

There is nothing solid about it.

Anyone who says otherwise is a pointless troll.

One should research ones posts first.
[quote[

If you want to play games, you can buy an iMac at about the same price which is much better set up for gaming.
[/quote]
What is it with people here; SANTA ROSA + its X3100 GPU has nothing to do with the arguments for inclusion of this technology in the MB. It is an issue of SR having very desirable features for this type of portable.

The MacBooks are so you can WORK on things from the comfort of your favorite neighborhood coffee house, and for that task, they are awesome.

There are all sorts of reasons to own a MacBook but lets discuss the coffee house. One advantage that a SR based laptop would offer is vastly improved battery performance as it has the ability to throttle down the processor when demand declines. Another is hardware decode of of HD video streams which should reduce power and free up processor power. There are a number of features with respect to Santa Rosa that don't even have to be included in a MB, but these two would be very significant to the average user.

I <3 my MacBook, and it's a year older than the ones they just released.

Dave

 

[Val-kyrie]

I have followed the arguments from both of you through 20 pages--that is my limit for tonight--and I will only say one thing. Regardless of whether you call the MB entry level or not, it is difficult for me to convince other people to invest a minimum of $1200 (I always recommend a DVD burner) for a portable computer. It would be nice if Apple offered a sub-$1000 laptop. I have been 'evangelizing' my family and friends for three years now and only the problems with Windows security and the nightmare called Vista have made them rethink their upcoming computer choice. It is hard for them and many other people with limited resources to cough up such a large sum of money for a computer, when there are other cheaper options. And if I am going to convince them to buy, I want it to be as future proof as possible because it will probably have to last them 5 years. (Yes I live in an impoverished area in the BFE.) That is my disappointment with the GMA 950 and my desire for the X3000/3100 and the latter's DX 10 compliance.

Sheesh Wolfpup, its hard to respond to a post that is so long.

But anyway, the thing about entry-level and all of that, you cannot say that it has to be between specific prices. Just like consumer and pro are designated by Apple those price ranges are created by other companies. Just because an entry-level Mac is more expensive then an entry-level Dell does not mean that it is no longer entry-level. My personal definition of entry-level is the type of computer someone might get as their first computer. If someone made a computer for less then $400 would it be sub-entry-level?

 

[Val-kyrie]

I think a Santa Rosa Macbook following that quickly on the heels of the Santa Rosa Macbook Pro isn't likely to happen. I think Apple will want to differentiate the two prodcut lines for a longer time and keep the performance gap large enough so that more people buy the Pro line at least until next year.

When Apple switched to intel that transition really impacted Apple's product cycles. Apple isnt as predictable as it once was. And factor in the other products that Apple sells and needs to work into the release schedule and it's getting harder and harder to predict what and when Apple is going to update with respect to desktops & laptops.

Actually, I think it is easier to predict Apple's models now, especially if you read tech sites that discuss Intel's roadmaps. There was nothing like it for the Moto chips/chipsets.