Intel iBook (MacBook) Arriving in May? and 17'' MacBook Pro?

[~Mac-Man~]

Iv been looking into MBP's, but it's only the first gen. By next like quarter theirs gonna be a new improvment made...i guess thats apples way isnt it!

But i like the idea of the MacBooks replacing the iBooks, hopefully theyre annodized alluminum, not that god awful white!

Now Then, are they going to change the G5's over to 2 or 4 Intels?...wouldent mind one of them!

----------------------------------------------------------
G5 Quad- 500gb HDD- 3GB Ram- 61inchLCD

 

[qtip919]

First of all, I think it would be a terrible mistake to make the MacBook aluminum. My wife and I both have Powermac's,she has a 12" and mine is a 17". My 17" inch is just over three years (by a week or two) and has a number of dents. It no longer looks fantastic as it did when I first got it. It hasn't aged well as I use it for my main machine for the past several months. My wife's 12" is only a year old and has the same problem, dents seem to appear and she's a light user compared to me. This in an educational setting is too delicate for students! My original iBook (the clamshell) took a tumble down stairs and scuffed the wood floor but had little wear to show for its journeys.

Second. I for one would miss the FW800 port. I have an external 600GB hard drive and while it has triple interfaces, FW800 is smoking fast.

Well that's my thoughts.

Chris Powers

I couldnt agree more.

About 2 months into owning my 15", I dropped it (only about 1-2 feet) off of a coffee table onto the floor. It really wasnt that bad of a fall, but the case is dented, and so my powerbook is just not looking all that hot.

I have several other Windows machines, and they all have nicks and scratches, but none of them have thin metal cases, and therefore none of them have dents.

Dents just make a gorgeous peice of hardware like a powerbook look terrible....

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

Iv been looking into MBP's, but it's only the first gen. By next like quarter theirs gonna be a new improvment made...i guess thats apples way isnt it!

It's actually every computer manufacturer's way, and every electronics manufacturer's way, and every car manufacturer's way, etc. ...

I dunno, I keep thinking back to the first generation G5 Power Macs. I bought a dual 2.0GHz with Radeon 9700 128MB -- that was one heck of a first generation computer. Don't know about the first generation MBP's or the upcoming MB's, but they sure aren't slouches and will last quite a while. Heck, folks are still using and buying iBook G3's, not even supported by OS 10.4. I think a Yonah MB/MBP first generation is a pretty good investment. A bad investment would be an iBook G4 at this point.

Dents just make a gorgeous peice of hardware like a powerbook look terrible....

And don't forget about temperature. Warm plastic is a lot more tolerable than hot aluminum on the lap. Although I like the look of the metal ones better, and even though the white shows the faint scratches more (you gotta look for 'em), the white plastic probably is a better material for Apple's entry-level laptop. I could go either way, personally. Just release the things already!!!

 

[SeaFox]

I think it's kinda cool how teleconfrencing cameras are becoming standard equipment on Macs. Maybe the next time they update cinema displays they'll add iSights to them as well.

In Apple America, display watches YOU!

Sorry, sorry, I couldn't resist that, although it really belongs on Slashdot.

 

[Multimedia]

Want 17" 2.25 GHz With Expresscard/54 & 4GB RAM Minimum

ThinkSecret claims that Apple has begun manufacturing the new "MacBook" (Intel iBook) which should be available in the next 30-60 days.

Meanwhile, a 17" MacBook Pro with brighter display is also in the works and should arrive around the same time. The 17" MacBook Pro is said to be otherwise similar to the current 15" MacBook Pro.

Boy this is one rumor I don't want to believe. If the 17" doesn't have Expresscard/54 I won't be able to pull the trigger. Glad I won't have to wait for the 64-bit Merom in the Fall to put in 4GB of ram - just wait for vendors to like Omni to offer 2GB sticks for a reasonable price. But if they don't put EC/54 in to begin with, the chances it will be in the Fall model diminish. I think the 15" offering without EC/54 is a pretty cheap, shortsighted cost-cutting oversight. The differences between the 34 and 54 card offerings are HUGE.

There needs to be more than just a bigger screen and a little more speed to differentiate the 17" from the 15" to justify the much higher price Apple will likely ask us to pay. Restoration of a FW800 port would help a lot too.

 

[deadpoet]

In a PC at least, the GMA950 can run Half Life 2 at between 20-25 FPS. This directly goes against the assertion that the GMA950 "won't run" these games as GFLPraxis states.

Running a game, especially an FPS, at 20-25 FPS is a sick joke. I'm not expecting 100 FPS on entry level Macs, but to say an Intel Mac mini runs modern 3D games just fine is plain ludicrous.

I can accept it if the low-end MacBook has integrated graphics. But if the "high-end" MacBook does not have a decent graphics card, I will be appalled.

It does not look like the 12" Powerbook is being replaced with a MacBook Pro. Therefore I will have no choice but to go for a 13" MacBook. Apple had better offer a kick-arse variant of the MacBook, or there will be trouble. I want a small and light laptop because I don't like carrying around heavy things, it's bad for my back. I want something light and portable which still offers enough power for serious graphics work as well as the occasional LAN gaming session.

FWIW there is no way I would call the upcoming MacBook a budget laptop. I'm sick of apologists making excuses for crappy specs and capabilities.

I bought my iBook G3 800MHz three years ago precisely because it had a decent graphics card. I love my iBook, it's been a rock-solid laptop.

If all MacBooks feature only integrated graphics with no option to upgrade to a better card, then I will be disgusted indeed.

 

[Surreal]

There needs to be more than just a bigger screen and a little more speed to differentiate the 17" from the 15" to justify the much higher price Apple will likely ask us to pay. Restoration of a FW800 port would help a lot too.

1900x1200
X1800
Expresscard/54
FW800

that's all i would need. really. the resolution could even be slightly lower. (no less than the current res though.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yonah supports 4 GiB of RAM

I guess I will have to wait for the 64-bit Merom in the Fall anyway so I can put in more than 2GB of ram.

The chipset used in the MacIntels supports 4 GiB of RAM, but the MBP only has two SO-DIMM slots.

2 GiB SO-DIMM cards are starting to show up - Dell/Lenovo/HP are all showing 4 GiB as the max on their laptops that use the same components that Apple is using.

It would be stupid of Apple to hack the firmware to block the usage of 2 GiB SO-DIMMs.

 

[suMMx]

seriously the people complaining about the possibility of a non standard dedicated graphics chip and non standard core duo are pretty lame. This is an entry level laptop and should have an entry level price. With a core solo integrated graphics macbook and a price tag of $1k there will be much more "switchers" than if it was only a core duo/dedicated graphics at $1300-1500. Personally i dont game on laptops and i dont need a dual core chip on my notebook, id rather save $300 and get a single core which works great for most laptops.

 

[Brundlefly]

it was a joke.

What game(s) were you playing?

the old ibook can't play games for poop. neither I imagine can this one.

 

[Multimedia]

AppleInsider Says All Core Duo MacBooks

Looks like a single core will be the $999 model and a dual core will be $1299-$1499.

Goodbye 12" ibook and powerbook

Nope. AppleInsider Says All Core Duo MacBooks. Just smaller and slower than the MBPs and w/o Expresscard/34 expansion. But they will display native lower resolution 1280 x 720p HD which is great.

 

[1984]

Why do people keep expecting Apple to bring back FW800?

It isn't Apple's fault that it is gone.

All my external hard drives have FW800 ports. There are a bunch of FW800 devices out there for pro applications. It is Apple's fault that it's gone because they were the ones who removed it. Now if Apple wants to call these pro models, especially the 17" version, then they need to at least replace it with an eSATA port or an ExpreesCard/54 slot. It would be better to have eSATA on board though as it frees up the slot for other options.

 

[neoelectronaut]

All I can really say is...bring it on.

I likely will not be getting one, or at least for some time, but it's always need to see the new toys coming out of Apple.

Man, selling the $999 iBook at work with 512MB of ram and a 40GB Hard Drive vs. a $749 Acer with gig of ram and 100GB HD isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world to do, so I'm excited. ******* excited.

 

[neoelectronaut]

Wait for the Macbook. Now is not the time to buy a G4 based Mac!

Well, I know for a fact that I WILL be scarfing up one of the remaining Superdrive 1.42 Mac Minis left over once they hit N-Status (Super-Discontinued, as I like to call it.) along with the accompanied price slashings.

 

[iHeartTheApple]

I'm just wondering what it's gonna look like...Can't wait for the 17" MBP...oh yeah!

 

[AllieNeko]

The resolution is too low vertically for my liking. 768 is CRAMPED. Losing 48 pixels will be insane! I just don't see 720 high as being usable, sorry Apple... I'll just have to save up for a MBP of my own (I REALLY like our MBP at church)

 

[NicoMan]

Resolution

But they will display native lower resolution 1280 x 720p HD which is great.

How can 1280*720 be great? If it is really that resolution I just don't get it.

1. Apple have a standard 16:10 ratio across the whole range. Why change it now to 16:9?

2. That would mean even less vertical resolution than the current iBook/12"PB. Which is not what you want. Already one of the issues IMHO of these is that you spend your time scrolling when you browse the web. If you even reduce the vertical resolution, it becomes ridiculous.

3. 1280*800 is now almost standard across the PC world. Which also means that Apple would have no trouble sourcing them. Has anyone seen the latest SZ1 series from Sony (I know this is a Windows computer)? the 13.3" screen is fantastic, resolution 1280*800 (that's 16:10). I'd like those specs (in a different enclosure obviously, one that doesn't yell "Plastic PeeCee!!"). I know this is an expensive machine but I'd like to think that this is the way to go, at leat for a small MBP.

 

[NicoMan]

The resolution is too low vertically for my liking. 768 is CRAMPED. Losing 48 pixels will be insane! I just don't see 720 high as being usable, sorry Apple... I'll just have to save up for a MBP of my own (I REALLY like our MBP at church)

Agreed 100%.
You just beat me to it.

 

[iAlan]

Let's wait and see...

I am sure it will be a nice machine once it comes out.

Sir Steve said he wanted 'Mac' in all product names or something to that effect, and I think he was refering to the computer line (not iPod or future consumer products). So the new 'pro laptops' are MacBook Pros. Why do we asssume that the 'consumer laptop' will be called a MacBook. I think this will confuse the product range - so why not a name like ’iMacBook' or 'iMac Portable' and the new 'towers' well that is a naming convection we can all but guess?

Just a thought...

 

[Ensoniq]

Reality Check:

1 - Most likely, the MacBooks will be white plastic, just like today's iBooks. Apple didn't change the iMac color/material with the Intel switch, so it's not likely the MacBooks will be any different. That said, I also think that a choice of black or white like the iPod is a good idea.

2 - The G4 Mac Minis were very similar to the iBook in specs. So the new Intel Mac Minis tell us a lot about what to expect. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but the MacBook is going to spec out somewhere between the Mac Mini and the MacBook Pro. Nothing more, nothing less. (And I expect prices to remain the same...)

3 - Video: Like it or not, the MacBook is probably going to have GMA950 graphics, like the Mini. Dedicated 64 MB VRAM is possible, but 128 MB is completely out of the question, so get over it.

4 - CPU: Like the Mac Mini, I am guessing one model with Core Solo @ 1.5 GHz, and one with Core Duo @ 1.67 GHz.

5 - Look at the two Mac mini models:

a) Core Solo 1.5/512 MB/60 GB/GMA 950/Combo - $599
b) Core Duo 1.66/512 MB/80 GB/GMA 950/SuperDrive - $799

Add $400-$500 for a 13.3" screen, keyboard, trackpad, iSight, battery, Magsafe connector, Sudden-Motion Sensor (and maybe even a backlit keyboard/ambient lighting sensor) and you've got your $999/$1299 MacBooks.

The MacBooks are probably going to just be Mac Minis with the extras above. Wishing for more than that will likely leave you disappointed. However, even with specs exactly as above these are very nice upgrades to the iBook and well worth the price if they do not go up.

 

[lvnmacs]

I'm hoping Apple does not do the integrated graphics on this one. I am not a gamer, but I am so happy with the graphic performace on my 15" G4 PB. I am ready for a new (Smaller) one soon. C'mon Apple!

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Making room for the iSight, just like the MBP?

The iSight is on a piece of plastic at the top, not physically ON the screen. The MBP is 16:10 (1440x900). Think Secret's prediction is 16:9 (1280x720). The iSight doesn't make ANY difference to the resolution or its aspect ratio. I would hope Apple goes for 1280x800 because the more vertical resolution they have, the better.

 

[eXan]

I still don't get why it would be re-branded as "MacBook".

The "i" was a consumer thing. iBook + iPod + iMac. Or should we expect a "MacPod" soon.

Ugh, I'm going to miss the old name.

MacPod - thats looks (and sounds) wired. Hope Apple is not going to rename iPod...

 

[eXan]

The iSight is on a piece of plastic at the top, not physically ON the screen. The MBP is 16:10 (1440x900). Think Secret's prediction is 16:9 (1280x720). The iSight doesn't make ANY difference to the resolution or its aspect ratio. I would hope Apple goes for 1280x800 because the more vertical resolution they have, the better.

No, iSight actually DOES make difference. Why would they have cut 60-pixel high chunk of the display? You know, it used to be 1440x960 pixels in 15 inch Powerbooks. They have done it to free up the room for iSight above they screen, but some space is still left free there and this what makes MBP look ugly to me. The area around the screen should be the same size, and not more at the top.

 

[FarSide]

from a
12" 1024 x 768 (786432 Pixels)
to a
13.3" 1280 x 720 (921600 Pixels)

I guess with only 720 Pixels it will get hard to use that MacBook (iBook was better) for even something like semi serious work. The normal resolution for widescreen would been 1280 x 854 or 1152 x 768 - which I personally prefer upon the ultra wide HD cinema "something"...