Or just call the DVD burning drive Combo, and the BluRay one Super
I think it should be UltraMegaDrive!
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
I think it should be UltraMegaDrive!
Or just call the DVD burning drive Combo, and the BluRay one Super
That's a big no-no. Confuses people. They must think of new names or get rid of the *****drive scheme altogether for example, why not saying the computer has "DVD" drive if it can read and write DVD's, and a "CD" drive if it can read and write CD's. They can always mention it in the full specs if the drive can also read some other formats.
It's just that (dumb) people have so used to sexy names...
Education Price Cut
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the price of the low-end Macbook for students is now $999 as opposed to $1049 previously.
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but the price of the low-end Macbook for students is now $999 as opposed to $1049 previously.
Have you ever typed on a MacBook? They may look like chicklets but they're not (trust me the IBM PCjr had chicklets, truly awful). It's similar enough to the MBP they just remove the bevelled edges from the keys. I know, my mind has a hard time getting over the chicklet appearence, but it's not that bad.
The original XBox had a custom nVidia chipset.
Integrated graphics are there to cut cost and the biggest flaw is often that they use system memory for video ram, which is slow. They are improving (the Intel 965 chipset in my Thinkpad X60 is decent at least as far as Windows Aero support) but still they are meant to be cheap and minimalist.
Egads, another 17 pages overnight. Probably 18 by the time I have this written...
A consolidated bunch of comments...
Yes, Apple could have given us Santa Rosa today, but under the classic "Good, Fast, or Cheap: Pick only two" paradigm, there invariably would have been a trade-off: probably a stiff price increase...which would then be the bone of contention and these same 1000 negative votes.
Repeat after me: "TANSTAAFL".
Or a third option: some of us are professionals with relevant first hand knowledge of the real costs to set up a manufacturing line and roll out a mass-produced product, and we know that the "better GPU only costs $4 more" arguement is completely and utterly bogus.
Been there done that: merely the words from a Salesman who is conveniently ignoring all of my fixed tooling costs that accompany a higher variable cost component. FYI, the last time that I said "No" to one of these snake-oil salesman, it resulted in a $300M/year cost avoidance.
Your loss, not mine.
More of the same (same guy).
I don't really want to be rude and say 'Please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out', but the bottom line is simple: if the hardware doesn't meet your needs, you really should to go find something else that does meet your needs.
Afterall, it is only a tool and we shouldn't be so emotionally attached to it - it is merely to get a certain set of tasks done in an efficient and frugal manner.
Personally, I believe that this really isn't an issue for needs, but merely a want. Yeah, I want to have nice toys too...but I'm able to recognize that as a desire, not something I actually need, and refrain from whining about its costs. We've seen debates about 'casual' users and 'non-demanding' games, but the bottom line still remains that utilization for ANY game isn't a "need", unless we're someone who currently makes our living in the gaming industry. So far, I've not noticed any of the "Casual Gamer" advocates actually say that they WORK in this industry. If I've missed this over the past 1000 posts, I apologize .. but please be a bit more concise in how the MB has stacked up against similar configurations in your test laboratory.
And unfortunately, most of those reviewers are also "Armchair Experts" with zero real-world experience out on a production floor, or in the offices where the tooling costs and amortization values are analyzed.
Finally...
Dang, I was hoping no one would mention that Overall, that was really the first time that Apple's gotten a "scoop" on the rest of the Wintel market for hardware...and yet, my point is pretty simple: there's always a reason why these things happen. Classically, we can say "Follow the Money", but it will probably be several years until the meaningful details of the PPC-->Intel transition deal make the light of day. Personally, I suspect that the first with the Quad Core was part of the Intel/Apple contract negotiation...perhaps as a concession to keep AMD locked out of Apple? In any event, Apple didn't really have that long of an exclusive on it, so it was mostly a "mindshare" marketing move.
FWIW, I fully expect that Apple is going to skip over some new CPU generations, as a cost containment move. I can't say which ones, because I'm not really close to being in the market right now, so I'm not following the technology or its rumors particularly closely. But for a finite product set and still a relatively small hardware producer, you have to control and limit proliferation, and this is one area in which it makes sense to do it.
As I said yesteray...this 'bump' was something that Apple could insert into existing production at very low costs, and it came with a cost reduction that they didn't have to pass along...but they did. There's nothing here to complain about regarding what Apple did. The only thing that one might complain about is how much of the cost savings that Apple chose to pass on (or more precisely, chose to not pass on), but if Apple's producers are already running at 95%-100% of their desired manufacturing capacity, there are valid reasons for Apple to not cut the price...its classical supply & demand, because even if you personally aren't going to buy one, Apple is selling all that they can make.
-hh
A consolidated bunch of comments...
Yes, Apple could have given us Santa Rosa today, but under the classic "Good, Fast, or Cheap: Pick only two" paradigm, there invariably would have been a trade-off: probably a stiff price increase...which would then be the bone of contention and these same 1000 negative votes.
Repeat after me: "TANSTAAFL".
Or a third option: some of us are professionals with relevant first hand knowledge of the real costs to set up a manufacturing line and roll out a mass-produced product, and we know that the "better GPU only costs $4 more" arguement is completely and utterly bogus.
Been there done that: merely the words from a Salesman who is conveniently ignoring all of my fixed tooling costs that accompany a higher variable cost component. FYI, the last time that I said "No" to one of these snake-oil salesman, it resulted in a $300M/year cost avoidance.
Your loss, not mine.
More of the same (same guy).
I don't really want to be rude and say 'Please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out', but the bottom line is simple: if the hardware doesn't meet your needs, you really should to go find something else that does meet your needs.
Afterall, it is only a tool and we shouldn't be so emotionally attached to it - it is merely to get a certain set of tasks done in an efficient and frugal manner.
Personally, I believe that this really isn't an issue for needs, but merely a want. Yeah, I want to have nice toys too...but I'm able to recognize that as a desire, not something I actually need, and refrain from whining about its costs. We've seen debates about 'casual' users and 'non-demanding' games, but the bottom line still remains that utilization for ANY game isn't a "need", unless we're someone who currently makes our living in the gaming industry. So far, I've not noticed any of the "Casual Gamer" advocates actually say that they WORK in this industry. If I've missed this over the past 1000 posts, I apologize .. but please be a bit more concise in how the MB has stacked up against similar configurations in your test laboratory.
And unfortunately, most of those reviewers are also "Armchair Experts" with zero real-world experience out on a production floor, or in the offices where the tooling costs and amortization values are analyzed.
Finally...
Do you mean like how Apple was first to get the 3.0 ghz 8-core CPUs out there in the Mac Pros?
Dang, I was hoping no one would mention that
Overall, that was really the first time that Apple's gotten a "scoop" on the rest of the Wintel market for hardware...and yet, my point is pretty simple: there's always a reason why these things happen. Classically, we can say "Follow the Money", but it will probably be several years until the meaningful details of the PPC-->Intel transition deal make the light of day. Personally, I suspect that the first with the Quad Core was part of the Intel/Apple contract negotiation...perhaps as a concession to keep AMD locked out of Apple? In any event, Apple didn't really have that long of an exclusive on it, so it was mostly a "mindshare" marketing move. FWIW, I fully expect that Apple is going to skip over some new CPU generations, as a cost containment move. I can't say which ones, because I'm not really close to being in the market right now, so I'm not following the technology or its rumors particularly closely. But for a finite product set and still a relatively small hardware producer, you have to control and limit proliferation, and this is one area in which it makes sense to do it.
As I said yesteray...this 'bump' was something that Apple could insert into existing production at very low costs, and it came with a cost reduction that they didn't have to pass along...but they did. There's nothing here to complain about regarding what Apple did. The only thing that one might complain about is how much of the cost savings that Apple chose to pass on (or more precisely, chose to not pass on), but if Apple's producers are already running at 95%-100% of their desired manufacturing capacity, there are valid reasons for Apple to not cut the price...its classical supply & demand, because even if you personally aren't going to buy one, Apple is selling all that they can make.
-hh
yeah but there's no drivers for those and the osx team was busy fixing osx4iphone so they didn't have time to write one either
You guys are hilarious. Complaining about a freaking computer company and what it decides to sell.
If you don't like the product, there's a simple way to send them a message:
Don't Buy It.
Complicated, ain't it?
If you don't like the product, there's a simple way to send them a message:
Don't Buy It.
Complicated, ain't it?
Cheaper? Please substantiate your claim, Wolfpup.
Please be sure to fully account for the following:
A GPU upgrade would have required a redesigned motherboard and a new manufacturing line to be set up to manufacture it. It would have required new software drivers. It would have required calculations and tests for changes in physical form factors. It would have required calculations and tests for changes in power draw design factors. And so on.
The CPU upgrade was a change in sub-component on the existing motherboard that would be virtually transparent. It would not require any changes to the motherboard manufacturing line, OS, power system, etc.
My point is that even if the CPU's variable cost was theoretically higher than the GPU's variable cost, there's huge differences in the two's respective fixed costs to put them into prodution that are being utterly ignored.
-hh
Sorry, I haven't read every single post in this thread, so forgive me if this has already been said. There would be 2 problems if Apple upgraded the MB to the latest & greatest (like Santa Rosa, dedicated graphics, etc.): (1) that would make the price of the MBs go up so you'll be complaining that tehy're too expensive for the average consumer. (2) What difference would there be between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro?
Many of you assume that most (if not all) people who buy a Mac are as knowledgeable about computers as you are. Unfortunately, they're not. They don't know what the difference between built-in graphics and a dedicated card is, much less care. Most people I've found who use MacBooks or Mac Minis only use them for e-mail, surfing the web and typing letters. Just stuff that doesn't need a huge, powerful video card or the biggest hard drive or whatever. Just because something's available doesn't mean you absolutely must have it.
Many of you assume that most (if not all) people who buy a Mac are as knowledgeable about computers as you are. Unfortunately, they're not. They don't know what the difference between built-in graphics and a dedicated card is, much less care. Most people I've found who use MacBooks or Mac Minis only use them for e-mail, surfing the web and typing letters. Just stuff that doesn't need a huge, powerful video card or the biggest hard drive or whatever. Just because something's available doesn't mean you absolutely must have it.
If it were another computer company, fine...people would just buy another brand...but a Macbook is the only laptop in that price range that can run OSX, which is necessary for many peoples' purchases. People want the best for their money, and many feel Apple could do better with this update
Not too much more expensive. A lot of people just want better integrated graphics, which costs very little
Screen size, backlit keyboard, matte screen option, faster processor, still better (but not that much) graphics, better speakers, and more...
They know if the iTunes CoverFlow scrollbar is blurry, and if Disco and other apps are not fully supported because the graphics suck, and if they can't connect to a 30" monitor.
All of a sudden what we have always had becomes a prized option
I'm amazed that people are flocking to the glossy display. Sure, it's the new thing but it's also very difficult to have any work done everywhere else but in a completely light-controlled (dark) room.Anti-glare screen is the #1 reason why Mac-people nowadays *must* buy pro models...
OMFG! PCjr. The Peanut! I must hang my head in shame, for I once owned one.
The keyboards are about as similar as a firecracker and a Saturn V. They look very similar so I can understand the confusion. They are two different beasts, trust me.
Sony's had Blu Ray drives in notebooks since last year some time. Dell has for at least a few months (I don't remember when exactly). They raise the cost of the system by roughly $500 though.
There's no reason it would need a price increase.
All irrelevant. Yes Apple would have to spend money redesigning the thing a bit. They'll have to anyway once they do bother upgrade the Macbook. The actual parts involved would be cheaper than the speed bumped CPU, unless they're getting some special deal from Intel.
And regardless, a better GPU would seriously improve the Macbook. A 160Mhz CPU bump does not.
No, it would not increase the Macbook's price. Why would it?
Better screen, better CPUs, better GPUs...exactly the same situation we have now.
That's unfortunately true. It's also true that a huge number of people buy computers that don't fit their needs, and don't realize it until after they own it. Saying someone doesn't understand the technology doesn't have anything to do with what they should be getting in a new system.
OMFG! PCjr. The Peanut! I must hang my head in shame, for I once owned one.
The keyboards are about as similar as a firecracker and a Saturn V. They look very similar so I can understand the confusion. They are two different beasts, trust me.
After a couple of weeks getting used to, I love my macbook's keyboard
All of a sudden what we have always had becomes a prized option
Anti-glare screen is the #1 reason why Mac-people nowadays *must* buy pro models...
Thats not true...I use my macbook all around school during the day, but I would prefer a matte screen...
macbooks: still the best laptops ever!
I think apple's computers are neat, and they become better every time. many people seem disappointed with the new updates for the macbook. well, I think the previous version was already great, so I can't complain like many users are doing already (time will bring more and more updates, more or less significant, but one thing is for sure: what we have now is already great, so why all this whining?). I almost sure there will be even more improvements soon, but even if they weren't any for the next months, I think we already have a great laptop for a great price. some pc's might be cheaper, but they are not as solid, and most important of all, they cannot run mac os, and that makes the macbook unique
I have a 7 year old windows portable pc, and, but I am definitively switching soon. when? in october, together with the brand new leopard. I am sure the waiting will be worth while
I think apple's computers are neat, and they become better every time. many people seem disappointed with the new updates for the macbook. well, I think the previous version was already great, so I can't complain like many users are doing already (time will bring more and more updates, more or less significant, but one thing is for sure: what we have now is already great, so why all this whining?). I almost sure there will be even more improvements soon, but even if they weren't any for the next months, I think we already have a great laptop for a great price. some pc's might be cheaper, but they are not as solid, and most important of all, they cannot run mac os, and that makes the macbook unique
I have a 7 year old windows portable pc, and, but I am definitively switching soon. when? in october, together with the brand new leopard. I am sure the waiting will be worth while
It's not a computer company anymore. They are now just Apple, Inc. Purveyor of gadgets.
True, they don't make money if no one buys their products. That doesn't make people satisfaction their business objective though. They might make more money by keeping people just satisfied enough to keep buying their products while not spending more than nessecary to do so. For example, putting a better graphics card in the MB might have made a few more people satisfied, but it reduce the revenue for each unit sold, actually translating into a loss of income for each MB sold to someone who would have bought it anyways. There are numerous other variables to take into consideration, and customer satisfaction is one of them, not a key objective or an obligation in any way.
Why are we using a general purpose CPU then and not a proper DSP?
You sir, win an internet.
Yet Intel didn't raise the price on the processors or the platform. Kudos for TANSTAAFL.-hh said: