eXan said:
The reason they cut 60 vertical pixels is simple, to revert the PowerBook line back to 16:10. It was only making it more of a pain for developers having 3 aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9, 16:10).
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.
Intel iBook (MacBook) Arriving in May? and 17'' MacBook Pro?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The reason they cut 60 vertical pixels is simple, to revert the PowerBook line back to 16:10. It was only making it more of a pain for developers having 3 aspect ratios (4:3, 16:9, 16:10).
I dunno, this thing just seems like it's going to be full of compromises, but I suppose that's expected in a consumer-level product. Still probably will be a pretty cool machine for a reasonable price. Anyway, what I want is:
-- 13" MacBook Pro
-- Roughly the same size and weight as the current 12" PowerBook
-- 1280x960 resolution (yep, 4:3!)
-- Core Duo at 1.8+
-- ATI X1600 128MB+
-- Backlit keyboard
-- Dual 400mbps FireWire ports on separate channels
-- 7200 rpm drive options
-- At least 3 USB 2.0 ports
-- Standard Airport (hopefully next-gen 802.11n or whatever it is)
-- Superdrive (at least an option)
-- Screen spanning dual-monitor (internal LCD + 1 external)
-- SPDIF audio I/O
-- OK to make it a tiny bit thicker to accomodate a beefier keyboard that doesn't mash up against the screen when closed.
Price: I would pay over US$2,000 for this, possibly approaching $2,500 if it had it all.
I don't care about:
-- PC card slots
-- Internal modem
-- iSight camera
-- Video in/out (although possible via the DVI port is good)
-- Anything beyond very basic internal sound (mono is even OK)
I can dream, can't I?
-- 13" MacBook Pro
-- Roughly the same size and weight as the current 12" PowerBook
-- 1280x960 resolution (yep, 4:3!)
-- Core Duo at 1.8+
-- ATI X1600 128MB+
-- Backlit keyboard
-- Dual 400mbps FireWire ports on separate channels
-- 7200 rpm drive options
-- At least 3 USB 2.0 ports
-- Standard Airport (hopefully next-gen 802.11n or whatever it is)
-- Superdrive (at least an option)
-- Screen spanning dual-monitor (internal LCD + 1 external)
-- SPDIF audio I/O
-- OK to make it a tiny bit thicker to accomodate a beefier keyboard that doesn't mash up against the screen when closed.
Price: I would pay over US$2,000 for this, possibly approaching $2,500 if it had it all.
I don't care about:
-- PC card slots
-- Internal modem
-- iSight camera
-- Video in/out (although possible via the DVI port is good)
-- Anything beyond very basic internal sound (mono is even OK)
I can dream, can't I?
screensaver400 said:
I'll kick myself if that's gonna happen.. I own a MBP 2.0 with 7200 Rpm HD.. and I don't know if you read any topics about them but nearly everybody complains it get's ****ing hot !!! and personally it's not to hot for me unless I hook it up to the power cable when I'm working.. then it does get kinda to hot..
now imagine that in an even smaller casing !! it's gonna be even hotter !!
I had an old G4 iBook and since i got my Powermac i didnt use it so i sold it. so i dont think i would get another one, but i really hope they do a budget version.
£350-£400 is the cheapest PC laptops you can get why cant apple make computers that cheap, its all you need for internet and the odd bit of word processing, and with my powermac thats all i need from a laptop.
i think if they did a laptop that cheap there would also be a lot of new OS X users who just want a cheap reliable computer for the internet
£350-£400 is the cheapest PC laptops you can get why cant apple make computers that cheap, its all you need for internet and the odd bit of word processing, and with my powermac thats all i need from a laptop.
i think if they did a laptop that cheap there would also be a lot of new OS X users who just want a cheap reliable computer for the internet
FarSide said:
No, it's not "normal" widescreen resolutions - those are resolutions of previous generations of PowerBooks. Its "taller" than 16:10, its 15:10. Personally I have never seen a screen with such aspect ratio (except the 15 inch Powerbooks)
BlizzardBomb said:
If it is true, then why MBP has a lot of free space between the display and the camera? Looks ugly to me
BlizzardBomb said:
None of Apple's displays had/s 16:9 aspect ratio.
MacRumorsReader said:
The cpu would fry long before it would ever get hot enough to burn plastic.
AidenShaw said:
I don't know who told you this, but they're wrong, 64bit doesn't offer any performance increase, all it does is increase the total amount of ram you can put in a system.
Want 17" With Real "Pro" Ports Like eSATA & FW800 & Expresscard/54
Pisses me off. Look at all that space on the sides where more ports could have been placed. And with the 17" there is even more space for all kinds of Pro ports. Apple is really letting the Professional market down with this first Intel Mobile entry. It is at best "Semi-Pro."
Want a 17" MBP with eSATA & FW800 & Expresscard/54. That is not unreasonable for what will certainly be a $3,000 portable.
I am with you 1984. What is so demanding about a Pro set of ports on a top of the line "Pro" Mobile Mac? The paltry set of ports on the 15" MacBook "Pro" is PATHETIC.1984 said:
Pisses me off. Look at all that space on the sides where more ports could have been placed. And with the 17" there is even more space for all kinds of Pro ports. Apple is really letting the Professional market down with this first Intel Mobile entry. It is at best "Semi-Pro." Want a 17" MBP with eSATA & FW800 & Expresscard/54. That is not unreasonable for what will certainly be a $3,000 portable.
1280 x 1024 Would Be Much Better
Multimedia said:But they will display native lower resolution 1280 x 720p HD which is great.
I think you're right Nicoman. I was only thinking about HD displaying. I wish they were 1280 x 1024 to be honest. I am really not in favor of wide screen displays at all. In fact I am on a 1600 x 1200 right now. My 24" next to it is 1920 wide. But its also 1200 high. I couldn't agree with you more that Apple is short shrifting everyone at the low end with these stumpy short heightened "wide" screens. They're really stummped chopped off 4x3 screens that cost less to put in there. Makes me sad AND mad.NicoMan said:
Very alone
I can't believe you guys, am I the only one gagging for a 10" subnotebook that just slips into our bag? 13.3" is fair enough, but it's never going to be, "I wonder if my laptop is in my bag", kind of experience.
I was half tempted to get a VAIO and hack OSX to bits to make it work but I'd miss all that stability..
APPLE! Give us something we can carry around all day!! I can live with single core! I can leave the CD drive at home!
Disappointed.
I can't believe you guys, am I the only one gagging for a 10" subnotebook that just slips into our bag? 13.3" is fair enough, but it's never going to be, "I wonder if my laptop is in my bag", kind of experience.
I was half tempted to get a VAIO and hack OSX to bits to make it work but I'd miss all that stability..
APPLE! Give us something we can carry around all day!! I can live with single core! I can leave the CD drive at home!
Disappointed.
I Am Sick Of All The Apologists Who Explain FW800 Is Unsupported By The Intel Chipset
Not your statement. Not you Stella. That "fact" is irelevant and not a legitimate excuse as is so elequently explained by our resident expert on all things technical on the other side of the Santa Cruz mountains just 30 miles north of me:
I don't beleive there isn't a way for Apple Engineers to be able to make FW800 work through some internal chipset addition that does support FW800 as well as eSATA. It's just lazy non-engineering.
I think Apple is just being a cheapskate not to offer as many different high speed ports as possible - esp for a premium portable like the $3,000 17" MB"P" - really "Semi-Pro" until proven otherwise. At the very least, they should have put TWO FW400 ports on the 15" that's out there along with Expresscard/54. Look at all that vacant space next to the EC/34 slot. Plenty of room for the EC/54 slot.
1984 said:
That's a load of C**P!Stella said:
Not your statement. Not you Stella. That "fact" is irelevant and not a legitimate excuse as is so elequently explained by our resident expert on all things technical on the other side of the Santa Cruz mountains just 30 miles north of me:Thank you sir Alden Shaw. A Voice of Sanity In A Sea of Ignorance.AidenShaw said:
If the Intel chipset won't support FW800, how come the Expresscard/54 dual FW800 cards work?eXan said:
I don't beleive there isn't a way for Apple Engineers to be able to make FW800 work through some internal chipset addition that does support FW800 as well as eSATA. It's just lazy non-engineering.I think Apple is just being a cheapskate not to offer as many different high speed ports as possible - esp for a premium portable like the $3,000 17" MB"P" - really "Semi-Pro" until proven otherwise. At the very least, they should have put TWO FW400 ports on the 15" that's out there along with Expresscard/54. Look at all that vacant space next to the EC/34 slot. Plenty of room for the EC/54 slot.
smuffle said:
I myself have a 10.4" subnotebook at the moment.... and it's not all it's cracked up to be. Mind you, I'm still on Windows XP (ducks for cover)... [Acer Travelmate C111TCi, convertible tablet/notebook]
It's nice for portability, but I would love to get my hands on a 13.3" notebook.
Want a viable 12" G4 PB replacement
I've had my 12" G4 Powerbook for I guess like 4 years, right after they came out, and love the thing. It's a perfect size to throw in a backpack. I also travel by plane A LOT and it opens up nicely in a coach seat (until the jerk in front puts their seat back, then it becomes tight).
I don't want more weight nor more height. A little wider is fine but kinda would be a drag not to be able to have a beverage next to me on the tray table. I can live with lack of screen real estate but wouldn't mind denser pixel counts within same space.
Again, I can't tell you how bummed out I'll be if it's scrapped. I've taken this baby with me everywhere. It's always in my backpack. And coupled now with Verizon's ev-do broadband wireless via Bluetooth into me Motorola e815 phone I can be on the net anywhere. It's a perfect set up.
I'm going to wait and if it looks like the 12" form factor is history I'll be hitting the refurb shop in a hurry and getting the last great 12" G4.
I've had my 12" G4 Powerbook for I guess like 4 years, right after they came out, and love the thing. It's a perfect size to throw in a backpack. I also travel by plane A LOT and it opens up nicely in a coach seat (until the jerk in front puts their seat back, then it becomes tight).
I don't want more weight nor more height. A little wider is fine but kinda would be a drag not to be able to have a beverage next to me on the tray table. I can live with lack of screen real estate but wouldn't mind denser pixel counts within same space.
Again, I can't tell you how bummed out I'll be if it's scrapped. I've taken this baby with me everywhere. It's always in my backpack. And coupled now with Verizon's ev-do broadband wireless via Bluetooth into me Motorola e815 phone I can be on the net anywhere. It's a perfect set up.
I'm going to wait and if it looks like the 12" form factor is history I'll be hitting the refurb shop in a hurry and getting the last great 12" G4.
Ok, I've heard alot of talk about this black/white/aluminum enclosure. Is this even a possibility that it will be somthing other then the white?Ensoniq said:
I really dont have any problem with the white, but I think black would look hot. As well I don't understand why everyone hates the white enclosure so much?
720 vertical resolution is crap. I don't care if it's the "correct" resolution for movies, as we're talking about a computer, not a TV.. I need to do work on this thing and the last thing I need is less vertical real estate than my current 12" PB.
It was Apple's choice, not Intel's...
Apple had to add a 1394 controller on either one of the PCIe lanes coming out of the southbridge, or on the PCI bus coming out of the southbridge.
Since an additional 1394 chip was needed in any case, Apple could have used 1394b.
It was Apple's choice to drop 1394b - not Intel's.
The Intel 945 chipset doesn't support 1394a either. (See the chipset diagram at http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945gm/945gm_diagram.htm )Stella said:
Apple had to add a 1394 controller on either one of the PCIe lanes coming out of the southbridge, or on the PCI bus coming out of the southbridge.
Since an additional 1394 chip was needed in any case, Apple could have used 1394b.
It was Apple's choice to drop 1394b - not Intel's.
Currently $1100 Combo and $1200 SD 1.5 GHz DDR333 80 GB HD 512 MB ram NOT GB Ethernet!!!! Man that's a deal killer for me.weave said:I've had my 12" G4 Powerbook for I guess like 4 years, right after they came out, and love the thing. It's a perfect size to throw in a backpack. I also travel by plane A LOT and it opens up nicely in a coach seat (until the jerk in front puts their seat back, then it becomes tight).
I don't want more weight nor more height. A little wider is fine but kinda would be a drag not to be able to have a beverage next to me on the tray table. I can live with lack of screen real estate but wouldn't mind denser pixel counts within same space.
Again, I can't tell you how bummed out I'll be if it's scrapped. I've taken this baby with me everywhere. It's always in my backpack. And coupled now with Verizon's ev-do broadband wireless via Bluetooth into me Motorola e815 phone I can be on the net anywhere. It's a perfect set up.
I'm going to wait and if it looks like the 12" form factor is history I'll be hitting the refurb shop in a hurry and getting the last great 12" G4.
GET THIS: They are already selling refurbished MBPs!
2 GHz $2200 and 2.16 GHz $2400 - Amazing
Like getting free Applecare out of the deal.
You need to read up on this new world of Intel
When an x86 chip shifts to x64 mode, some major architectural changes occur. Most important, instead of having the 8 32-bit general purpose register of x86 - x64 has 16 64-bit registers. Since several registers are used for pre-defined purposes, this means that x64 mode has nearly 3 times as many available registers. Compilers can take advantage of this to reduce the traffic to cache and main memory.
x64 mode also has twice as many 128-bit SSE registers, so that SIMD and floating point can be much faster. (The SSE vector unit has a "vector length = 1" mode which is the recommended way of doing scalar floating point on x86/x64.)
Here's a bit from Bare Feats - if you look around you'll see many other benchmarks showing improved performance for 64-bit applications on x64.
Note the lines "PD 2.8 64/64", "PD 2.8 64/32", "PD 2.8 32/32". Those are three tests on the same 2.8 GHz Pentium D dual-core. "32/32" is 32-bit OS/32-bit app. "64/32" is 64-bit OS/32-bit app. "64/64" is 64-bit OS/64-bit app.
As you can see, the 64-bit app is 23% faster than the 32-bit app.
DKZ said:
- 32-bit Intel chips have supported 64 GiB of RAM for quite a few years, you don't need 64-bit to put more that 4 GiB of RAM on a system
- The big "more RAM" advantage of 64-bit is that a single program can easily use more than 4 GiB if it needs the space
- For PowerPC, 64-bit is no faster - and is most likely slightly slower - than 32-bit
- For Intel x64 chips, however, 64-bits is often quite a bit faster. 20% faster is an average speedup for 64-bit
When an x86 chip shifts to x64 mode, some major architectural changes occur. Most important, instead of having the 8 32-bit general purpose register of x86 - x64 has 16 64-bit registers. Since several registers are used for pre-defined purposes, this means that x64 mode has nearly 3 times as many available registers. Compilers can take advantage of this to reduce the traffic to cache and main memory.
x64 mode also has twice as many 128-bit SSE registers, so that SIMD and floating point can be much faster. (The SSE vector unit has a "vector length = 1" mode which is the recommended way of doing scalar floating point on x86/x64.)
Here's a bit from Bare Feats - if you look around you'll see many other benchmarks showing improved performance for 64-bit applications on x64.
BareFeats said:http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html
Cinebench is a multi-processor aware benchmark that simulates typical functions of Maxon's Cinema 4D XL.
There is now a 64 bit version for Windows 64 users that goes 23% faster.
Note the lines "PD 2.8 64/64", "PD 2.8 64/32", "PD 2.8 32/32". Those are three tests on the same 2.8 GHz Pentium D dual-core. "32/32" is 32-bit OS/32-bit app. "64/32" is 64-bit OS/32-bit app. "64/64" is 64-bit OS/64-bit app.
As you can see, the 64-bit app is 23% faster than the 32-bit app.
I had a dream I saw the MacBook. It looked a lot like the iPod. White with sort of a clear covering on it. Typical Apple style, backlit keyboard even, with the most beautiful screen I've seen in a long time. The really weird part of this was... all of the ports, minus USB and FireWire, were on the BOTTOM of the laptop. Weird. iSight, yup, FrontRow with Apple Remote, yup. Quick? Yup...
and I thought I was a nerdMarlon_JBT said:I had a dream I saw the MacBook. It looked a lot like the iPod. White with sort of a clear covering on it. Typical Apple style, backlit keyboard even, with the most beautiful screen I've seen in a long time. The really weird part of this was... all of the ports, minus USB and FireWire, were on the BOTTOM of the laptop. Weird. iSight, yup, FrontRow with Apple Remote, yup. Quick? Yup...