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
Yes, the UK prices changed. As mentioned before, this was likely done to bring the UK prices in line with US prices (current exchange rates and all). Essentially, the UK buyers have been over-paying and now they're even with the US.
However, I would consider a "price drop" when all areas lowered their prices, particularly the US. Not because I live in the US, but because Apple is based in the US.
alwaysaangel said:
That is very interesting, I think. It leads me to believe that this MB update was meant for college-bound students and the "real" update will be coming after they have already started classes in the Fall.
Apart from cost for redesign, there is the cost for everyone of having a brand new, untested design instead of one that is already in use for a year.
This is the one thing people don't seem to comprehend and you seem to be guilty of too! SR with its integrated chip set is no more high end than when the Napa version of Centrino was released. In effect this update is a huge step backwards for the MB, it now has antiquated chip set hardware relative to when Napa & MB was first released.
It is not unreasonable at all for people to have expected SR and its X3100 GPU in this release of the MB. Especially considering that Apple went state of the art, for an integrated GPU, when MB was first issued. The SR solution would simply mean that Apple would have been keeping pace. Now they have a grossly over priced laptop with expired technology.
So thanks to Apple we got short changed where the MB was the weakest (GPU performance) and in a few other places. What are those places you might ask. Well SR had a number of improvements that would of jelled well with MB target market. These include enhanced power savings, decoding of video streams (at a power savings), support for HDMI and the copy protection methods there and likely other things suitable for a low end lap top.
All of these could have been implemented on the MB without tapping into the high end features that will likely go into the MBP. When people try to associate SR with high end components they are exposing to the world a lack of knowledge with respect to the hardware and the birth of the MB's. SR IS NOT HIGH END it is simply todays replacement for the NAPA line. The line that went into the MB when it was brand new.
dave
The Apple TV has a better GPU because Apple chose the cheapest combination of CPU and graphics card that is capable of handling 720p video. The MacBook can handle 720p video because it has four times as much CPU power. And it can handle lots of other things that the AppleTV would have not the slightest chance to handle because it has four times as much CPU power. The MacBook has a completely different balance of parts than the AppleTV.
2 times more power at most. Then again I know that a 2.53 GHz Celeron can decode 720p h.264 just fine. The Pentium-M in the Apple TV can handle that just fine.
Are they not making the 200s in 7200rpm yet in the 2.5" size?
No. The 200 GB drives can hold 200 GB because they use a new method of writing data which can write the data much closer together. At the same rotational speed, that would be much more data per second, probably very hard to handle. That's why the 200 GB drives are 4200 rpm.
So the disadvantage is: For random reads, it takes longer until you get the data. To read data, you have to move the harddisk head to the right position, then wait until the data comes along. On the average, you wait 1/2 rotation. You can calculate how long that takes at 7200 rpm (rotations per minute) and 4200 rpm (rotations per minute).
However, because the 200 GB harddisk has a much higher data density, once it starts reading, it reads a lot more data per second than a smaller drive, so for large reads it is just as fast.
But it gets better: For every harddisk, data on the outside can be read/written faster, because there is more space for data, so at the same number of bytes per inch you can store more data on a track at the outside of the disk. If you fill a 100 GB harddisk, after you've written 80 GB you have to use the parts on the inside of the disk which are slower. Write 80 GB onto a 200 GB disk, and it is only 40 percent full, so you are still at the outside. Both disks get slower the more data you write, but the 200 GB disk doesn't slow down nearly as much as a 100 GB one.
Im just annoyed that they have 2 year old graphics technology and they base their appeal on the fact that macs are designed for 'fun' home use.
Many people argue that the lack of discrete graphics is to keep weight/heat/power etc etc etc down, but you can buy a lighter C series Vaio for less with a 7400Go; you can buy SZ series Vaio with hybrid graphics and *half* the weight of a Macbook, how hard can it possibly be to stick a 7400Go into the macbook.
Even if they don't want to use discrete graphics, Santa Rosa is hardly a beast, its more efficent, uses less power, and is *todays* low end graphics chipset not 2005's.
IMO Apple is just lazy, period. The only reason they gave us this 'update' is so they don't have to change anything for 6 months given the excuse that they 'updated' only in May.
Many people argue that the lack of discrete graphics is to keep weight/heat/power etc etc etc down, but you can buy a lighter C series Vaio for less with a 7400Go; you can buy SZ series Vaio with hybrid graphics and *half* the weight of a Macbook, how hard can it possibly be to stick a 7400Go into the macbook.
Even if they don't want to use discrete graphics, Santa Rosa is hardly a beast, its more efficent, uses less power, and is *todays* low end graphics chipset not 2005's.
IMO Apple is just lazy, period. The only reason they gave us this 'update' is so they don't have to change anything for 6 months given the excuse that they 'updated' only in May.
Penryn will need Santa Rosa
Note that "exactly the same platform" is referring to the Santa Rosa platform - a Penryn won't drop into the old Napa64 platform.
Note that "exactly the same platform" is referring to the Santa Rosa platform - a Penryn won't drop into the old Napa64 platform.
Napa64 is also in the high end system - the MBP.
Napa64 with integrated graphics (the "G" series northbridge) is what is in the MB Core 2 Duo. Napa64 without integrated graphics in the MBP Core 2 Duo.
You are right, though, in that Santa Rosa with integrated graphics is the low end replacement for the Napa64 with integrated graphics - but to say that SR is the low end ignores the fact that there are several variants of the SR platform.
ready2switch said:
Definitely not in-line with UK prices -
Basic Macbook $1099 - this is equal to £556 - so UK buyers pay a £143 premium even after the price drop (thats almost $300 for those of you too lazy to work it out
)Seems a bit unfair to me
Definitely not in-line with UK prices -
Basic Macbook $1099 - this is equal to £556 - so UK buyers pay a £143 premium even after the price drop (thats almost $300 for those of you too lazy to work it out
Seems a bit unfair to me
VAT?
Apple's Update Motive: Another Possibility
According to what I've heard the MBPro will have the Santa Rosa platform. While Apple did not choose to go this route for the MB for the time being, it could possibly be attributed to motherboard stock levels. I would imagine that "updating" the CPUs a few hundred MHz on the MBs (with the same motherboards) wouldn't require much or any change in manufacturing--just putting in a different chip into the same socket.
So maybe they bought a small supply of these new 2.0 and 2.16 GHz CPUs to use on existing motherboards in warehouses to make the leftovers more attractive without having to "can" them for a new mobo for the MBs.
And if, as expected, Apple updates the MBPro to Santa Rosa, they could preserve the consumer/pro gap between MB and MBPro and still sell leftover, unsold stock of the current MacBooks.
I'm guessing that the MacBooks will be updated to the Santa Rosa when they can continue to preserve the consumer/pro gap in products.
If they're putting in Santa Rosa in their higher-end laptop, why put the same thing in the consumer end?
**Let's all petition Apple to change. I'm voting for a return to the RISC-based PowerPC via CELL. Hell, Sony isn't selling many PS3s maybe they're in a position to sell off their stock of CELLs at a discounted price. I know I should wake up!
According to what I've heard the MBPro will have the Santa Rosa platform. While Apple did not choose to go this route for the MB for the time being, it could possibly be attributed to motherboard stock levels. I would imagine that "updating" the CPUs a few hundred MHz on the MBs (with the same motherboards) wouldn't require much or any change in manufacturing--just putting in a different chip into the same socket.
So maybe they bought a small supply of these new 2.0 and 2.16 GHz CPUs to use on existing motherboards in warehouses to make the leftovers more attractive without having to "can" them for a new mobo for the MBs.
And if, as expected, Apple updates the MBPro to Santa Rosa, they could preserve the consumer/pro gap between MB and MBPro and still sell leftover, unsold stock of the current MacBooks.
I'm guessing that the MacBooks will be updated to the Santa Rosa when they can continue to preserve the consumer/pro gap in products.
If they're putting in Santa Rosa in their higher-end laptop, why put the same thing in the consumer end?
**Let's all petition Apple to change. I'm voting for a return to the RISC-based PowerPC via CELL. Hell, Sony isn't selling many PS3s maybe they're in a position to sell off their stock of CELLs at a discounted price. I know I should wake up!
Erm the CELL is overrated. It will be a nightmare for Apple to rewrite everything for that platform. It is not a usual processor as we know it, but one with various instruction set limitations.
Napa
MacBook - 945GM
MacBook Pro - 945PM
Santa Rosa
MacBook - GM965
MacBook Pro - PM965
'G' just means you get the integrated graphics.
Sadly, whether you take account of sales taxes (such as VAT) or not, it's still cheaper buying in the US rather the UK.
If the change in UK MacBook pricing was to do with the current currency exchange rate, why only change MB pricing? In any case, previous changes in UK pricing haven't been linked to the exchange rate.
Mind you, I'm not complaining - cheaper Macs for all I say!
Also a £6 reduction for the shuffle
- very true, I thought about adding 'other than shuffles', but thought nah, no one would pick me up on that one.Except they weren't better. 10+ years ago the 604 destroyed the Pentium 1 (though I don't know how it compared to the Pentium Pro). The G4 was pretty great against the Katmai Pentium 3. But really the Coppermine P3 left it in the dust. They never really caught up after that.
Plus the RISC/CISC thing's been basically a moot point since the Pentium Pro, on through to today, since really they're RISC chips with an x86 decoder on the front end (which takes up progressively less % of die space).
I've got to disagree with this. Yes, you can directly compare specs, but you've still got a faster CPU either way-and a much more frequent, reliable upgrade path for Apple (no more begging for decent CPUs from two companies that don't care).
Why? I mean there's no immediate need to upgrade, but once you do, you'll be getting a better system than you would have if they'd been chained to IBM/Freescale.
Why? As iWoot says, Cell is a joke. It's really fast for some very specific things (highly parallelizable and predictable code, like video encoding/decoding), but it's absolutely terrible for most stuff. Your G4 would probably kick it's butt in a lot of code, let alone a Pentium 4, let alone a Core 2.
Switching to Cell would not only be a HUUUUUGE step backwards from where they are now, it would be a step backwards from the G5 they used to use, and they'd be stuck once again with no guaranteed future.
This Intel transition has been the best thing that's happened to them in years. I was a little worried at first their products would stop seeming like Apple products-but that clearly hasn't happened.
Intel has even provided Apple with special hardware-like the 3GHz Core 2 (or Xenon...whatever they're calling them) Quad Core chips in the Mac Pro aren't even shipping products...only Apple had/has them. And it's given Intel a chance to show off in ways they don't get to in Windows PCs (the new firmware, custom sexy harware, etc.)
Plus, more power than we used to have...plus we can run Windows natively on our Macs! There's nothing wrong with having that ability! And it makes them a lot more attractive to people who are on the fence about Apple...and that's an ever growing number of people thanks to the iPod and general good will and "cool" factor of Apple.
Really what makes Apple Apple is the software and hardware designs-neither of which has suffered in the slightest.
Nope, this has been a really good thing, but I want them to keep up within reason, so that people aren't tempted to switch away, and Windows/Linux users are!
Quite possibly, but only because that'll be close to the six month upgrade period Apple's been more or less following. I'd assume others are disappointed for the same reason I am-we want to buy new hardware now! I was thinking I'd have to whip out my credit card if we had gotten a 15.4" Macbook with at least the current Intel graphics...
They are available outside of the MacIntel Pro - although not on the official price lists of the big server vendors. Because, one clock multiplier improvement in speed isn't really that big a deal.
Six months after the other vendors started shipping Octo cores, Apple shipped one that was one tick faster. Does the acronym "BFD" mean anything to you?
Yes, it's nice that Apple is able to ship a few Octos that are a small fraction of a GHz faster than the norm - but they can't put the current Intel chipset in a MB upgrade? Pathetic.
Yes, I loved Intel's big SuperBowl ad about EFI firmware.
I'm kind of disapointed with the lack of video upgrades. Even if it was the newer intel ones. I don't want it for games, but rather to give Vista's eye candy a better go *cough*
Uh well, i will keep my black 1st gen macbook a while longer.
Uh well, i will keep my black 1st gen macbook a while longer.