Sidebar Sidebar
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?

MarkCollette said:
Well, something that Intel CPUs, Microsoft Windows, and integrated graphics all have in common, is that they are better now than they were before. Perhaps to some people, they were sufficiently worse before so as to be unusable, and now they are sufficiently better to be usable?
Click to expand...
Not according to this graph from this barefeats.com test. :(

micd-utb.gif



The first 3 are Intel Macs, the last is a G4 Mac Mini. Note how well the Intel iMac with X1600 performed. I'm not a big gamer, but for the little that I do, I sure don't want it to be powered by "integrated graphics."

Apple sure seems to be standardizing components. I'm shocked that the Mac Mini, iMac, and Macbook Pro all have 2 RAM slots and all take DDR2 PC5300 memory. I think there is a good chance we will see X1600 graphics in all 13" Macbooks. If not, surely in the high end. I can't see Apple selling a $1499/$1599 laptop with integrated graphics.
 
AHHHHHHH WHEN WILL WE SEE THE ****ING THINGS ALREADY??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
ImAlwaysRight said:
Not according to this graph from this barefeats.com test. :(

micd-utb.gif



The first 3 are Intel Macs, the last is a G4 Mac Mini. Note how well the Intel iMac with X1600 performed. I'm not a big gamer, but for the little that I do, I sure don't want it to be powered by "integrated graphics."
Click to expand...

Of course you're not mentionning that the Doom3 and Quake3 results show the integrated graphics systems being as good or better. Or the Core Image showing the integrated graphics systems coming in between the two dedicated systems.

Granted, the Radeon 1600 always does better than the Intel GMA950, but the Intel GMA950 seems to hold its own against the Radeon 9200.
 
ImAlwaysRight said:
YIPPEE!!!! The Intel GMA950 can hold its own against a 4 year old video card! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's the spirit :)

Just to explain me err explanations, I'm not saying that I would ever want the integrated graphics. It's just that someone was saying that Apple was flip-flopping about some stuff, including integrated graphics being usable or not. I think it's come to a point where someone doing regular desktop stuff can use integrated graphics and be ok.

I myself would rather have dedicated graphics, with MPEG2, MPEG4, and H.264 hardware acceleration. But, I can't afford a new computer now anyway, so who cares what I think :eek:
 
So, you either hate integrated graphics more than kangaroos or you aren't so bothered by it.

but really guys, what about the 17" Macbook Pro? i never thought i would have the money for an apple laptop for more than a week.

it is physically painful to have this money now. not to mention the emotional damage. all they have to do is announce it will be available when the 2.33's are and allow me to buy one. really. i am that desperate to own this ethereal device.

i am quite aware that i am frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a product, but this seems the proper place to do so.
 
I think hoping for an X1600 in all MacBooks is a bit over the top, especially if apple wants to nail the all important 999 price point...

On the other hand, i doubt they would cripple any high end MacBooks (possible 12" powerbook replacement) with the intel graphics...

I'd bet on an X1300 in the low end, with an X1400 or 1600 as either a BTO option or standard feature on the high end.

I wouldn't bet on seeing a 13" MBP either, 12" powerbook was basically a pimped out iBook, so by just making a pimped out MacBook Apple can save on the costs of manufacturing a seperate case for the MBP.
 
hype alert

BenRoethig said:
despite a vastly superior ... firmware implementation than wintel machines
Click to expand...
This is ludicrous.

Who really cares about the low-level hardware stuff that launches the primary boot loader?

Only Apple can manage to convince people that they are superior because for the first 7 seconds after powering on their system runs "more modern" code that does exactly the same thing that the "last century" code on the PC does.

Bleat. Bleat!
 
NewMacFan said:
The store is down right now, maybe they come today?!?!
Click to expand...
Store was down for the Aperture update/price reduction. It's back up now with no other changes. :(

Looking at the current, soon-to-be-discontinued Powerbook G4 12", it has the following specs:

$1499
1.5GHz PowerPC G4
512MB DDR333
80GB Ultra ATA drive @ 5400rpm
8x SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 with 64MB DDR Video Memory

Surely Apple is not going to come out their high-end Macbook for $1499 or possibly $1599 and put dedicated graphics in the thing. I think the high end Macbook will look like this:

$1499/$1599
1.67GHz core duo
512MB DDR2-PC5300
80GB SATA drive @ 5400rpm
8x SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon X1600 with 128MB DDR Video Memory (lesser Macbooks should have 64MB)

Now, who wouldn't be all over this baby? If it looks like that, I'll probably sleep with it the first night I bring it home. :eek: :confused: :D

The iBooks/12" Powerbook G4 are VERY long in the tooth and due for a MAJOR upgrade. And the iBook is slated for a major revision, like going from the iMac G4 to iMac G5 (but probably not as drastic, as how much can you really do to a laptop?) Look at the upgrades that iMac revision received. Or even the iMac G5 Rev. A to iMac G5 Rev. B got hefty upgrades (processor speed, hard drive space, video graphics, built-in airport/bluetooth) and the price even went DOWN $100 for the 20" model.

No way Apple is going to jeopardize Macbook sales by putting in integrated graphics. I think they have felt the backlash with IG in the Mac Mini's. But most people understand those are $599/799 computers. For $1099-1599, I can't see Apple being so foolish to put integrated graphics in the thing. Plus, they want to be able to tout the performance of their 12" laptop, not make it look like a piece of crap in the 3D arena compared to 12" PC notebooks that cost half as much, which is exactly what the charts will show if Apple puts integrated grapics in the Macbook. Let's look at this again, shall we?

micd-utb.gif



Mark my words: NO INTEGRATED GRAPHICS FOR MACBOOKS!

After all, ImAlwaysRight. :)
 
Please tell me, of all those who are so against having integrated graphics cards in a MacBook how many are seriously thinking of buying one themselves. Can you honestly say that you are going to buy an MacBook yourself this year, even in the MBPro is released with Merom or whatever other wonderful utilities have been speculated.

I'll bet the number is quite low.

Outside of Mac fanboy sites like this the general consensus of Apple computers is "nice computers but far too expensive".

Apple need to sell a laptop computer to compliment the Mac mini at a reasonable price, one that normal people can afford. Normal people don't use Photoshop, play Doom 3 or anything else that requires a dedicated graphics card and consequently makes the machine more expensive.
 
kerpow said:
Please tell me, of all those who are so against having integrated graphics cards in a MacBook how many are seriously thinking of buying one themselves. Can you honestly say that you are going to buy an MacBook yourself this year, even in the MBPro is released with Merom or whatever other wonderful utilities have been speculated.

I'll bet the number is quite low.

Outside of Mac fanboy sites like this the general consensus of Apple computers is "nice computers but far too expensive".

Apple need to sell a laptop computer to compliment the Mac mini at a reasonable price, one that normal people can afford. Normal people don't use Photoshop, play Doom 3 or anything else that requires a dedicated graphics card and consequently makes the machine more expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of getting one, and I'd rather have dedicated graphics. How much more expensive are the intel chips over the G4? I don't understand where these extra dollars are coming from..
 
while the core solo will meet my needs as a consumer level customer, the core duo will have enough umph to run pro apps like cs and office with all the apps open at the same time

i cannot see where a macbook pro would have any advantage worth the price difference if apple came out with a core duo "ibook"
 
I personally plan on buying an i/MacBook when it comes out, and I honestly believe the demand will be strong enough that I got up at 5:30 PST this morning (when Apple does the store updates) to see if the iBook had been released today, because I don't want to order mine when I get to work at 8:00 since most of the east coast will have been ordering for about 3 hours, which would mean long shipping delays for me to receive my laptop.

Just my .02, but I believe the i/MacBook will probobly be the best seller that Apple has in it's first generation Intel line.

Oh, and I have never owned an Apple before this, but I sold my HP laptop to a friend (I was thinking of upgrading anyway) in anticipation of the i/MacBook being released.
 
jefhatfield said:
i cannot see where a macbook pro would have any advantage worth the price difference if apple came out with a core duo "ibook"
Click to expand...

You mean, just like when the PBs were 1.5 and 1.67 and the iBook's were 1.33 and 1.42. It's the same thing.
 
kerpow said:
Please tell me, of all those who are so against having integrated graphics cards in a MacBook how many are seriously thinking of buying one themselves. Can you honestly say that you are going to buy an MacBook yourself this year, even in the MBPro is released with Merom or whatever other wonderful utilities have been speculated.

I'll bet the number is quite low.
Click to expand...
In case you can't tell, I am buying one. I've needed a Mac laptop since the beginning of January, but want a 12/13" not 15" (had 15" in the past but think it is too big). I'm not going to buy a G4 iBook when Intel is the future and has about 2x the processing power (not quite 4x like Apple wants you to believe.)

I think you'll find many of the people who post in a thread like this on a Mac rumor site about the new Macbooks are participating in the discussion because they are interested in buying one. Even if they are not going to buy one, or if they already own an Intel Mini, iMac, or MBP, what does it matter? Integrated graphics is a step backward, and no one who supports the Apple platform wants to see it take a step backward.

jefhatfield said:
i cannot see where a macbook pro would have any advantage worth the price difference if apple came out with a core duo "ibook"
Click to expand...
Things like faster processors, LARGER screen size, dual-link DVI output, metalic vs. plastic skin, are the advantage. Plus, often those buying the Pro models have the $$$ to afford it. Just like the iBook/Powerbook G4 laptops, you'll see similar configuration/pricing with the Macbooks/MBP laptops.
 
ImAlwaysRight said:
In case you can't tell, I am buying one..... but want a 12/13" not 15"
Click to expand...

In sounds like were arguing about different things. You want a portable Mac (I understand, I'm a 12" PB owner myself), I want to see an affordable Mac. You're assuming that the 13.3 MacBook will be the only portable Mac introduced to the Intel line. That may not necessarily be the case.

ImAlwaysRight said:
no one who supports the Apple platform wants to see it take a step backward.
Click to expand...

Of course I agree, but sometimes Apple do things that suprise us, even anger us on occaision. Remember the resistance to flash based mp3 players before the Shuffle and Nano came out?
 
kerpow said:
Please tell me, of all those who are so against having integrated graphics cards in a MacBook how many are seriously thinking of buying one themselves. Can you honestly say that you are going to buy an MacBook yourself this year, even in the MBPro is released with Merom or whatever other wonderful utilities have been speculated.

I'll bet the number is quite low.

Outside of Mac fanboy sites like this the general consensus of Apple computers is "nice computers but far too expensive".

Apple need to sell a laptop computer to compliment the Mac mini at a reasonable price, one that normal people can afford. Normal people don't use Photoshop, play Doom 3 or anything else that requires a dedicated graphics card and consequently makes the machine more expensive.
Click to expand...


I am looking to get the new MacBook PowerBook 12" replacement model, or the most expensive MacBook iBook replacement. I need a more powerful computer. The iBook isn't as fast as I would like it to be, especially on powersaver mode where it is so slow it reminds me of a Celeron 366 I owned running Windows XP.

Have a look at this configuration Sony Vaio - its probably the most expensive 'class/quality' regarded make of PC notebook at a price of £1065:

http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/prod...9kdWN0X3NwZWNpZmljYXRpb25z&product_uid=105549

For those who can't be bothered, it features a 1.66Ghz Duo, 13" Screen, 512RAM, 80GB HD, DVD-RW, Modem and a Geforce 7400 Graphics Card with Turbocache..

Its £34 less than the current £1099 PowerBook G4 12". Remove the 56k Modem and its probably £50-60 less. Apple can easily sell such a spec machine at the $1499/£1099 PowerBook price with an iSight built in. Granted, lower configured models may sacrifice a dedicated GPU and HD capacity to cut costs, but we must remember that Apple must be getting a better deal on the Intel chips than Sony.

In conclusion, some people don't want the battery burning top-end Duo's and 15" screen size. I for one bought the iBook for its portability/price efficiency. But I still have an albeit low VRAM dedicated GPU. I CAN play a game - it may be crappy but at least I can play it. The benchmarks show you really cant play a new game at all on the GMA.

Regards
 
Legacy said:
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/prod...9kdWN0X3NwZWNpZmljYXRpb25z&product_uid=105549

For those who can't be bothered, it features a 1.66Ghz Duo, 13" Screen, 512RAM, 80GB HD, DVD-RW, Modem and a Geforce 7400 Graphics Card with Turbocache..

Its £34 less than the current £1099 PowerBook G4 12". Remove the 56k Modem and its probably £50-60 less. Apple can easily sell such a spec machine at the $1499/£1099 PowerBook price with an iSight built in. Granted, lower configured models may sacrifice a dedicated GPU and HD capacity to cut costs, but we must remember that Apple must be getting a better deal on the Intel chips than Sony.

In conclusion, some people don't want the battery burning top-end Duo's and 15" screen size. I for one bought the iBook for its portability/price efficiency. But I still have an albeit low VRAM dedicated GPU. I CAN play a game - it may be crappy but at least I can play it. The benchmarks show you really cant play a new game at all on the GMA.

Regards
Click to expand...
Yeah, we haven't really taken into account the dedicated video cards with partially shared memory. That card is more then likely 32/64 MB dedicated with another 64 MB shared when performance requires it. Hopefully Apple will go with at least that route.
 
This Just In...

From a MacWorld UK news report: (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile speculation continues to grow that Apple will announce an Intel-powered replacement for its current iBook models, perhaps as soon as next week on the eve of the company's financial announcement on April 19.

Some reports claim Apple will offer a choice of colours in the new iBook family, which they say will be renamed the "MacBook" family.

Apple has an arrangement with a UK firm under which that firm disposes of all Apple's ex-demo stock. That company this week announced a number of iBooks and eMacs at slightly discounted prices, inadvertently furnishing potential evidence that a move to release new consumer portables could come soon.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back