iMac and MacBook Pro Upgrades in First Half of 2011?

[Yebubbleman]

Yeah, but at least if I take care of it it won't get those. Doesn't matter what you do with the white macbooks, they get cracked plastic, it is just inevitable. Everyone I knew with one the plastic cracked at the hand wrists. One guy they replaced the keyboard (and the handrest area) and it cracked again. That's what I'm talking about. And then I hear that the new ones are better but then see threads talking about newer ones that still have the same issues! So excuse me if I don't trust Apple for using a plastic that doesn't crack after a while. I will avoid buying another apple plastic laptop if I can help it (unless I really need a new one and that is really the only good option they give me. Honestly, even now if I had to choose between the MB and the MBA, there is less differences that really matter between the two that I could see maybe choosing the MBA cause I couldn't get myself to buy another laptop that I'd fear would inevitably crack on me and while it has a slower processor the MB doesn't offer me any more input/output ports which is very important to me so I wouldn't have to sacrifice that at least if I went MBA. I guess the MB would have a far larger hard drive and honestly that is important to me. So, most likely go with the MB, but it would be harder for me to choose between the two than choose between the MBP and MBA).

White Unibody MacBooks don't have the cracking problem that plagued the older generation enough to cause Apple to put out a Repair Extension Program (REP). Trust me; in terms of design and durability, these guys are a massive improvement.

So just cause it won't get what you want it to get you think it should just go away?

Where do you get that from? I'm sorry, did I just attack your religion or something? I haven't seen enough benchmarks between Core 2 and Core i3 to get ME all fired up about it. I just know that others, including those on these forums and THE PRESS, are critical of Apple for not bringing the 13" MacBook Pro up to par with its larger siblings and that their options to do something like that are limited and not without trade-offs that one doesn't typically associate with "MacBook Pro". This is NOT a problem experienced with the white MacBook, the MacBook Air, or the Mac mini as most people don't care about what's inside those models.

It sells well. The MB sells well. Why should they make something that sells well go away?

They've done it before. (See iPod mini) Also, it was their best selling Mac a year ago. Who's to say it still is today? Who's to say it will tomorrow, especially with the white MacBook essentially being the same computer?

If anything I feel the 13" MBA is going to be the one that will have a harder time selling. It still has the same issues the old MBA had that made it not sell well (it's not all that significantly smaller and you get a reduction in power/ability for the reduced size.

You're actually technically getting a faster computer with the 13" Air. It's also way more affordable and people tend to go for the smaller computer because it is so light (not my idea of a good computer buy; I'd rather go 13" Pro too, but that's what consumers are going for) Sure, you can attribute that to SSD (though SSDs aren't the only factor, so sayeth benchmarks), but even then, to configure a 13" MacBook Pro with an SSD has you spending MORE money. Granted, you get more connections and an optical drive, but we're just talking performance here.

The 11" does actually reduce the size significantly as a good trade off for losing some features and a smaller processor).

It's a Netbook, what do you expect?

 

[technowizard]

Yeah, but at least if I take care of it it won't get those. Doesn't matter what you do with the white macbooks, they get cracked plastic, it is just inevitable. Everyone I knew with one the plastic cracked at the hand wrists. One guy they replaced the keyboard (and the handrest area) and it cracked again. That's what I'm talking about. And then I hear that the new ones are better but then see threads talking about newer ones that still have the same issues! So excuse me if I don't trust Apple for using a plastic that doesn't crack after a while...

A very small amount of the early Rev A Unibody plastic macbook's had cracks. In fact, they were only hairline cracks (like on the white iPhone 3g) which are pretty benine and even then, the hairline cracks were near the hinge in the corner of the display, nothing in the wristpad area. I have owned one of the unibody plastic MacBooks since early February 2010 and have had no cracking and is very solid in construction. It is a very durable machine and has withstood heavy use very well with nary a crack or dent, useful as its constantly travelling.

 

[Yebubbleman]

A very small amount of the early Rev A Unibody plastic macbook's had cracks. In fact, they were only hairline cracks (like on the white iPhone 3g) which are pretty benine and even then, the hairline cracks were near the hinge in the corner of the display, nothing in the wristpad area. I have owned one of the unibody plastic MacBooks since early February 2010 and have had no cracking and is very solid in construction. It is a very durable machine and has withstood heavy use very well with nary a crack or dent, useful as its constantly travelling.

Yeah, while I can't live without a FireWire port, it's 13" Pro for me all the way. Otherwise, the white MacBook is better than it has ever been in terms of durability and construction.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Why do I think they will ditch a 13" Well Jobs hates having too many models. He has always said this and acted on this. That is why after he re-took the helm they got rid of all the different tower cases and merged that into one tower case. He has also has said the MBA is the future of hte mac laptop line. I am pretty sure that even without the (possible) restriction to 4 new SKUs this would still be the trend. I think they will likely ditch the MB and keep the MBP lineup. Or ditch the 13" MBP and keep the MB. Though the macbook line is closer in price to the Macbook air, its also close in performance and features, except its a big clunky piece of plasitc. Everything else in the lineup is aluminum, except the MB.
Either way, with the Air models, The vanilla macbook and 13" Macbook Pro there is way to much crossover and cannibalization. Some model will get axed and it sure isnt gonna be the MBA models!
Likely the middle or top 15" will stay and the other two 15" will get a processor bump.
I would like to say that the 17" is safe as a flagship product but it is vulnerable due to its size. The only thing that keeps it around are its connectivity options and those can be grafted onto a 15" (again) especially if the aspect ratio of the screen changed to make the 15" wider.

 

[UNIX4ALL]

Why do I think they will ditch a 13" Well Jobs hates having too many models. He has always said this and acted on this. That is why after he re-took the helm they got rid of all the different tower cases and merged that into one tower case. He has also has said the MBA is the future of hte mac laptop line. I am pretty sure that even without the (possible) restriction to 4 new SKUs this would still be the trend. I think they will likely ditch the MB and keep the MBP lineup. Or ditch the 13" MBP and keep the MB. Though the macbook line is closer in price to the Macbook air, its also close in performance and features, except its a big clunky piece of plasitc. Everything else in the lineup is aluminum, except the MB.
Either way, with the Air models, The vanilla macbook and 13" Macbook Pro there is way to much crossover and cannibalization. Some model will get axed and it sure isnt gonna be the MBA models!
Likely the middle or top 15" will stay and the other two 15" will get a processor bump.
I would like to say that the 17" is safe as a flagship product but it is vulnerable due to its size. The only thing that keeps it around are its connectivity options and those can be grafted onto a 15" (again) especially if the aspect ratio of the screen changed to make the 15" wider.

I really hope that 13" macbook pro will stay alive on the next update !

 

[Yebubbleman]

Why do I think they will ditch a 13" Well Jobs hates having too many models. He has always said this and acted on this. That is why after he re-took the helm they got rid of all the different tower cases and merged that into one tower case. He has also has said the MBA is the future of hte mac laptop line. I am pretty sure that even without the (possible) restriction to 4 new SKUs this would still be the trend. I think they will likely ditch the MB and keep the MBP lineup. Or ditch the 13" MBP and keep the MB. Though the macbook line is closer in price to the Macbook air, its also close in performance and features, except its a big clunky piece of plasitc. Everything else in the lineup is aluminum, except the MB.
Either way, with the Air models, The vanilla macbook and 13" Macbook Pro there is way to much crossover and cannibalization. Some model will get axed and it sure isnt gonna be the MBA models!
Likely the middle or top 15" will stay and the other two 15" will get a processor bump.
I would like to say that the 17" is safe as a flagship product but it is vulnerable due to its size. The only thing that keeps it around are its connectivity options and those can be grafted onto a 15" (again) especially if the aspect ratio of the screen changed to make the 15" wider.

They could kill the white MacBook and make the 13" MacBook Pro into "The new MacBook". Were it not for the necessity for Apple to make a durable Mac laptop (read: one that can take hits without denting), I could easily picture this. Otherwise, it makes sense for them to nix the 13" Pro as it's almost too much of a 'tweener model for what it is.

I really hope that 13" macbook pro will stay alive on the next update !

I still say that come the next refresh, excluding the MacBook Air line, it would be way cool to have a Mac laptop line that looks like this:

13" White MacBook: 2.5" drive Bay (Hard drive option stock, SSD optional), integrated graphics (C2D+320M or Core i and Intel IGP, either way), Optical Drive, same exact design in every other respect

13" MacBook Pro: Blade SSDs (mandatory), no 2.5" bay, Core i processor, discrete graphics (as a primary product of removing the 2.5" bay), optical drive, slightly longer battery life (as a secondary product of removing the 2.5" bay), Optical drive, virtually identical to the current rev externally

15" MacBook Pro: Blade SSDs AND a 2.5" bay, discrete graphics, optical drive, yada yada yada

17" MacBook Pro: Same as the 15" except maybe, just maybe, another slot for another blade SSD stick

Come on, there is nothing that isn't win about that line-up.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Intel's new mSATA SSDs (what some of your refer to as "Blade") take up a fourth of the space of a traditional 2.5" harddrive. Considering that, huge gains in space are going to be made if Apple simply goes mSATA SSD with all the MBP models, as they half-implied they will with the MBA.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Intel's new mSATA SSDs (what some of your refer to as "Blade") take up a fourth of the space of a traditional 2.5" harddrive. Considering that, huge gains in space are going to be made if Apple simply goes mSATA SSD with all the MBP models, as they half-implied they will with the MBA.

I could see them nixing the 2.5" drive bay in favor of that SSD on the 13" Pro and then utilizing that space for ::insert badly needed feature here (discrete GPU, i3/i5, etc)::, though I couldn't on the 15" and 17" where the added capacity from using both (like on the 27" iMac) the 2.5 and the mSATA Blade would simply be too beneficial.

 

[MattInOz]

I still say that come the next refresh, excluding the MacBook Air line, it would be way cool to have a Mac laptop line that looks like this:

13" White MacBook: 2.5" drive Bay (Hard drive option stock, SSD optional), integrated graphics (C2D+320M or Core i and Intel IGP, either way), Optical Drive, same exact design in every other respect

13" MacBook Pro: Blade SSDs (mandatory), no 2.5" bay, Core i processor, discrete graphics (as a primary product of removing the 2.5" bay), optical drive, slightly longer battery life (as a secondary product of removing the 2.5" bay), Optical drive, virtually identical to the current rev externally

15" MacBook Pro: Blade SSDs AND a 2.5" bay, discrete graphics, optical drive, yada yada yada

17" MacBook Pro: Same as the 15" except maybe, just maybe, another slot for another blade SSD stick

Come on, there is nothing that isn't win about that line-up.

Well if the rumour is true of only 4 models and you look at the layout of the Air store page verses the other products then maybe will see the range re-organised to two screen sizes in each range.
So MacBookAir is 11 & 13 and ultra mobile.

MacBook 13 & 15 utility mobile both with i5 dual cores and Plus Light GPU. so more like the current MBP 13 and 15 but in the Macbook price points even drop $100 so they are lower than the Air.

Then the MacBookPro would be 15 & 17 with Sandy Bridge i5 Dual Cores (BTO i7Dual/i7Quad) Discrete GPU and lightpeak and Air Style SSD plus regular 2.5bay.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Well if the rumour is true of only 4 models and you look at the layout of the Air store page verses the other products then maybe will see the range re-organised to two screen sizes in each range.
So MacBookAir is 11 & 13 and ultra mobile.

MacBook 13 & 15 utility mobile both with i5 dual cores and Plus Light GPU. so more like the current MBP 13 and 15 but in the Macbook price points even drop $100 so they are lower than the Air.

Then the MacBookPro would be 15 & 17 with Sandy Bridge i5 Dual Cores (BTO i7Dual/i7Quad) Discrete GPU and lightpeak and Air Style SSD plus regular 2.5bay.

As much as I'd like to see a 15" non-Pro MacBook (or something akin to the 9400M-only 15" model from the Mid-2009 generation in the line-up), I'm skeptical. Same with Lightpeak being put in any Mac introduced this next year. :-\

 

[mozumder]

Hope they get rid of the drives on MacBook Pros

Get rid of the optical drives, since no one uses them and it just becomes dead weight.

Replace the hard drive with all solid state.

Fill the extra space with batteries.

Add lightpeak.

Done.


Pros need high-bandwidth interfaces for cameras & external drives. Internal drives are useless to pros anyways, since they're not big enough for massive media.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Get rid of the optical drives, since no one uses them and it just becomes dead weight.

Not to mention you can get external DVD drives that are 3x as fast as the SuperDrives.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Get rid of the optical drives, since no one uses them and it just becomes dead weight.

Replace the hard drive with all solid state.

Fill the extra space with batteries.

Add lightpeak.

Done.


Pros need high-bandwidth interfaces for cameras & external drives. Internal drives are useless to pros anyways, since they're not big enough for massive media.

1. People absolutely use the optical drive. This may be the number one largest deterrent to getting the MacBook Air, certainly out of all of the Mac users I know. I mean, hell, simply using the thing as a portable DVD player is nice.

2. MacBook Pros can last 8-10 hours on a single battery charge. More than that is extraneous; when are you going to be longer than that without an adapter?

3. Lightpeak would be rad. Don't expect it anytime soon.

 

[tigress666]

2. MacBook Pros can last 8-10 hours on a single battery charge. More than that is extraneous; when are you going to be longer than that without an adapter?

While I do like having a DVd drive in my MBP I have to say to this point it would be nice to have a battery that actually lasted 10 hours. Right now it lasts maybe 7.5 and that is running Safari and word on half brightness, the conditions that Apple claims to have tested it at.

 

[UNIX4ALL]

I still say that come the next refresh, excluding the MacBook Air line, it would be way cool to have a Mac laptop line that looks like this:

13" White MacBook: 2.5" drive Bay (Hard drive option stock, SSD optional), integrated graphics (C2D+320M or Core i and Intel IGP, either way), Optical Drive, same exact design in every other respect

13" MacBook Pro: Blade SSDs (mandatory), no 2.5" bay, Core i processor, discrete graphics (as a primary product of removing the 2.5" bay), optical drive, slightly longer battery life (as a secondary product of removing the 2.5" bay), Optical drive, virtually identical to the current rev externally

15" MacBook Pro: Blade SSDs AND a 2.5" bay, discrete graphics, optical drive, yada yada yada

17" MacBook Pro: Same as the 15" except maybe, just maybe, another slot for another blade SSD stick

Come on, there is nothing that isn't win about that line-up.

That Macbook's line could be very cool, I really like your 13" configuration, but I think that the actual price will be increased with this upgrade and maybe Apple would not be interested.

 

[huffboy]

my guess:

999 11 Inch MBA
1299 13 Inch MBA
1799 15 Inch MBP
1999 15 Inch MBP
2199 15 Inch MBP
2299 17 Inch MBP

13 inch MB and MBP are goners.

 

[Yebubbleman]

While I do like having a DVd drive in my MBP I have to say to this point it would be nice to have a battery that actually lasted 10 hours. Right now it lasts maybe 7.5 and that is running Safari and word on half brightness, the conditions that Apple claims to have tested it at.

Previous 13" white MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro (Late 2009 and Mid 2009, respectively) had a "7-hour battery-life". The Mid-2010 versions of both computers have a "10-hour" battery life" while maintaining the same size chasis, and just about all other internal components. I'd attribute it to the increased efficiency of the GeForce 320M's function as the system controller, but that can't be the whole story.

That Macbook's line could be very cool, I really like your 13" configuration, but I think that the actual price will be increased with this upgrade and maybe Apple would not be interested.

The price to upgrade to 512GB would be significantly more than it is to upgrade the 13" Pro to a 500GB hard drive today, but I don't see the cost of one of those (as I am imagining 'em) to be configured with a 256GB config as costing much more, if any bit more at all. You might have something in between the price-points of both current models of 13" Pro, which wouldn't suck all THAT much.

my guess:

999 11 Inch MBA
1299 13 Inch MBA
1799 15 Inch MBP
1999 15 Inch MBP
2199 15 Inch MBP
2299 17 Inch MBP

13 inch MB and MBP are goners.

Somehow I doubt they'd kill both with one fell swoop, though when Phil Schiller says that the 11" MacBook Air is their most affordable Mac ever, almost as though the 13" white MacBook doesn't exist, it makes me think that your notion is easily possible. They did say that the MacBook Air is the "Future of MacBooks".

 

[zedsdead]

Apple is not going to kill the 13" Macbook Pro considering it is their best selling Mac (last year at least). I assume it is still selling well.

 

[tigress666]

Previous 13" white MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro (Late 2009 and Mid 2009, respectively) had a "7-hour battery-life". The Mid-2010 versions of both computers have a "10-hour" battery life" while maintaining the same size chasis, and just about all other internal components. I'd attribute it to the increased efficiency of the GeForce 320M's function as the system controller, but that can't be the whole story.

Uh, I have the mid-2010. Why do you think I was correcting you on the real battery life of it? Shoot, if you looked at my sig you would have realized I was talking about the one they claimed 10 hours on.

And the battery lasts more like 7.5 hours (or less) using the same tests I hear Apple used (I keep it at half brightness, less really, when on battery and I use safari and word which was the two apps they supposedly used for those 10 hours).

So, yeah, they claim 10 hours. But as is typical, it really isn't what they claim. Except this time I can't even blame it that maybe I'm using the computer differently. Plus I've noticed a lot of people talking about how their 2010 MBP battery is already at lower nineties and eevn 80's percentile life left. Even my 2007 MB still claims 97% battery life still left. Higher than what my MBP claims (and it's 3 years newer!).

 

[Yebubbleman]

Apple is not going to kill the 13" Macbook Pro considering it is their best selling Mac (last year at least). I assume it is still selling well.

Apple discontinued the iPod mini at a time when it was the best selling iPod ever, it's not unheard of for them to do something like that.

When Apple made the statement that the 13" MacBook Pro was their best selling Mac ever, the 13" unibody white MacBook was weeks old at most, and the MacBook Air was still under-evolved and overpriced. Flash-foward to the present day and landscape has changed quite a bit.

Also, in the MacBook Pro line, as it stands today, there are two models of the 13", three models of the 15", and one model of the 17", and four predicted models coming in the refresh. Do the math; which two models are getting excluded from the party?

Also, I might be speaking solely for myself here when I say this, but I'm not saying that the 13" MacBook Pro itself is going away as much as I'm saying that there'll likely no longer be a 13" computer branded as "MacBook Pro". From a marketing standpoint, it's making less and less sense all the time to keep a 13" model in that line, especially with the white MacBook and the new MacBook Airs being what they now are.

Uh, I have the mid-2010. Why do you think I was correcting you on the real battery life of it? Shoot, if you looked at my sig you would have realized I was talking about the one they claimed 10 hours on.

And the battery lasts more like 7.5 hours (or less) using the same tests I hear Apple used (I keep it at half brightness, less really, when on battery and I use safari and word which was the two apps they supposedly used for those 10 hours).

So, yeah, they claim 10 hours. But as is typical, it really isn't what they claim. Except this time I can't even blame it that maybe I'm using the computer differently. Plus I've noticed a lot of people talking about how their 2010 MBP battery is already at lower nineties and eevn 80's percentile life left. Even my 2007 MB still claims 97% battery life still left. Higher than what my MBP claims (and it's 3 years newer!).

You clearly missed the entire point of what I was saying. Between your generation and the one before it, the "rated" battery life went up without anything changing to the chasis. The only real change was the addition of the GeForce 320M and the different speeds of Core 2 Duo. My point is that something improved in the battery.

As for your battery, something there sounds amiss, even with you being among many. I work at a computer repair place and, come to think of it, I do recall seeing that original part number being replaced with a new one. You might want to look into it. They don't change their part numbers lightly like that. When did you buy your current gen 13" Pro (i.e. which month)?

 

[articcine]

I'd be surprised if the MBPs aren't upgraded the first half of 2011. Of course, I do hope february, it will be a disappointment if they wait until June or so. The iMacs however, I don't think we'll se an upgrade at the same time as the MBPs. Maybe Apple would like to have something new to show in the spring (MBP) and then another new thing during autumn (iMac). Time will show.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'd be surprised if the MBPs aren't upgraded the first half of 2011. Of course, I do hope february, it will be a disappointment if they wait until June or so. The iMacs however, I don't think we'll se an upgrade at the same time as the MBPs. Maybe Apple would like to have something new to show in the spring (MBP) and then another new thing during autumn (iMac). Time will show.

That certainly makes sense, though it'd be nice for them to update the iMacs at a time when the enclosed ATI Radeon chipset is NOT about to be, itself, updated. August-November = bad time to unveil an iMac.

 

[mrt209]

I'm pretty sure they're revealing the new iMacs in June/July. Q1 will be all about iPad 2 and the verizon iPhone, so Apple prob wont release the iMacs at the same time.

 

[wannamacpro]

I agree that the 13" MBP needs to differentiate itself, though I don't believe that it ever will, which is why, if there will only be four models in the next refresh, the 13" Pro will not be among them. They'll either (a) put in an i3/i5 and use ****** Intel graphics, or (b) maintain the status quo, neither of which are either appropriate or acceptable for a "MacBook Pro" at that point. Also, either option will be far less negatively recieved on any of the other Core-2-Duo-320M-weilding Macs. So, it's simple, kill the 13" Pro, then take your pick of either of the aforementioned option and you have your low-end Apple market.

Regarding rumours of an Intel-only graphics solution for the MBP 13 - 4 reasons why I hope it doesn't happen (reposted here at the request of Yebubbleman):

1. Price. Something that seems to have been overlooked in all of the arguments for the SB IGP solution in the MBP 13 is that the SB GPU is essentially a "free" offering. SB + i3 will quickly become the stuff of sub-$400 notebooks, if not sub-$300 netbooks. Apple will have a hard time justifying a $600-$700 price premium for this kind of hardware package. Apple could make this pill slightly easier to swallow by offering the i5 or equivalent in the 13-inch model. It has been noted that the nVidia 320m is also an IGP, therefore "free" - but selecting a chipset based on IGP capabilities seems to be a little different than relying on an on-die GPU that will come with every CPU - especially when the "custom" IGP approximates the performance of previous generation discrete offerings (nVidia 320m performs at approximately the same level as the 9600m GS, due to more cores, along with increased system RAM bandwidth - and just slightly below the DDR2 9600m GT).

2. Product cycles. GPU manufacturers have lived in a world of grueling product cycles for years. Chip revisions have come as often as every six months to answer the ever-increasing needs of games, HD video, and now, multi-processing apps. How willing will Intel be to retool a CPU plant just for the sake of increasing the performance of the on-die GPU?

3. Ditto software cycles. nVidia and AMD are used to shipping drivers at regular intervals to address rendering artifacts in new or previously untested applications, and to improve performance. I have seen performance increase by as much as 25% over the lifecycle of a GPU, owing only to driver updates. Is Intel going to be this responsive to what will have to be perceived as the demands of "casual gamers?" Their track record with previous graphics offerings suggests "no" - just ask any Linux user stuck with an Intel IGP. If you think Flash performance under OSX is bad with the nVidia offering, just wait until you try playing "Farmville" on an Intel GPU.

4. Questionable OpenCL performance. So far the language surrounding OpenCL performance in SB has been evasive, in my book. Is OpenCL going to be supported by the GPU, as well as the CPU? If so, it would appear that Sandy Bridge has 12 shader cores vs. 44 for the current nVidia IGP. Undoubdtedly they are faster, but are they 4x as fast?

IMHO, if this is the direction the 13-inch MBP is going, Apple would do better to kill it in favor of the MBA and focus on the 15 and 17-inch offerings (presumably with Sandy Bridge and actually "killer" discrete graphics).

 

[Yebubbleman]

Regarding rumours of an Intel-only graphics solution for the MBP 13 - 4 reasons why I hope it doesn't happen (reposted here at the request of Yebubbleman):

1. Price. Something that seems to have been overlooked in all of the arguments for the SB IGP solution in the MBP 13 is that the SB GPU is essentially a "free" offering. SB + i3 will quickly become the stuff of sub-$400 notebooks, if not sub-$300 netbooks. Apple will have a hard time justifying a $600-$700 price premium for this kind of hardware package. Apple could make this pill slightly easier to swallow by offering the i5 or equivalent in the 13-inch model. It has been noted that the nVidia 320m is also an IGP, therefore "free" - but selecting a chipset based on IGP capabilities seems to be a little different than relying on an on-die GPU that will come with every CPU - especially when the "custom" IGP approximates the performance of previous generation discrete offerings (nVidia 320m performs at approximately the same level as the 9600m GS, due to more cores, along with increased system RAM bandwidth - and just slightly below the DDR2 9600m GT).

2. Product cycles. GPU manufacturers have lived in a world of grueling product cycles for years. Chip revisions have come as often as every six months to answer the ever-increasing needs of games, HD video, and now, multi-processing apps. How willing will Intel be to retool a CPU plant just for the sake of increasing the performance of the on-die GPU?

3. Ditto software cycles. nVidia and AMD are used to shipping drivers at regular intervals to address rendering artifacts in new or previously untested applications, and to improve performance. I have seen performance increase by as much as 25% over the lifecycle of a GPU, owing only to driver updates. Is Intel going to be this responsive to what will have to be perceived as the demands of "casual gamers?" Their track record with previous graphics offerings suggests "no" - just ask any Linux user stuck with an Intel IGP. If you think Flash performance under OSX is bad with the nVidia offering, just wait until you try playing "Farmville" on an Intel GPU.

4. Questionable OpenCL performance. So far the language surrounding OpenCL performance in SB has been evasive, in my book. Is OpenCL going to be supported by the GPU, as well as the CPU? If so, it would appear that Sandy Bridge has 12 shader cores vs. 44 for the current nVidia IGP. Undoubdtedly they are faster, but are they 4x as fast?

IMHO, if this is the direction the 13-inch MBP is going, Apple would do better to kill it in favor of the MBA and focus on the 15 and 17-inch offerings (presumably with Sandy Bridge and actually "killer" discrete graphics).

I really think Apple must be seeing this line of thought, especially with the white MacBook and the MacBook Air both being what they are and have been, and that's why four of the six machines in the line, which conveniently excludes the two models of 13" (the 15" has three and the 17" has one), are rumored to be getting the due update.

(Thanks for the repost. It's funny how many of these threads overlap in terms of discussion.)