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

[Surreal]

speaking of graphics, i want a X1800 in that new 17". pronto.

i would consider paying...200-300 more for it as a BTO option.

 

[Random Passerby]

But what I WANT is a 12" MBP!
It seems like such a bad move from apple to cut out the pros who want a portable machine. I hope it isn't true.

 

[MacRumorsReader]

The Mac is the new Black

Mark my words! (hey this is a rumor site)

The macBook will be the status symbol on campuses, everywhere.

"Dude is that a MacBook?"
Oh Yeah
"And you can fire up XP on it?"
Oh Yeah. But I don't need it much
"Man I gotta get me one of those."

 

[hd78]

hopefully they put a better screen in the new iBook replacement. The current iBook's screen and brightness is pathetic even compare to a cheap $499 laptop.

 

[minipri]

In Windows, a Radeon 9200 can run Star Wars Battlefront. The current iBook has a Radeon 9550. It may not be the most modern card but it's enough to play many/most modern PC games on lower settings.

I'm sorry, but the GMA 950 is a *downgrade*. Consumers want to play casual games too. We're not talking Half-Life 2 at max settings here. Consumers will play at 640x480 if it just runs.

Maybe you're (Originally Posted by dr_lhasick) of people complaining about it, but I'm sick of the apologists that keep saying, "Oh, you want to play casual games? Go spend twice as much on a pro machine! I don't care if you don't have that much money!". I can build a $400 PC with a Geforce FX 5200 that can play games the Mac Mini won't run. I want the iBook to be able to because I can't upgrade it at a later point.

Right on! We (Apple buyers) ...we pay more! We want more! ...more then the Dell-buying PC dude's I mean. ...listen to your people Apple. Just listen.

[ dim. ]

 

[g.x]

my G3 iBook has [a] dedicated 32 MB video card

My iBook G3 600 only has 8 MB of video RAM.

 

[lduncan]

I'm still waiting for my Macbook Pro to arrive! I ordered the day it was announced at MacWorld.

Apple Australia has a lot to answer for!! Surely sending a few dozen MacBook Pros to New Zealand is not a big ask?

 

[theBB]

Okay.. So I'm-a-gonna wait to buy. But, if this thing has integrated graphics and/or less than 128mb VRAM, I'm getting a MBP.

You might as well order your MBP now.

I cannot believe you people. You flame Apple for not offering cheap, barebones systems to increase market share. Yet, when Apple offers entry level desktops and laptops with integrated graphics to keep prices down, you freak out. You demand a desktop below $500 or a laptop under $1000, yet you think Core Solo is useless. If anything, Apple is not going far enough, they should drop nice features such as iSight, remote etc that a lot of people may not be able to afford and offer a really entry-level model.

BTW, if you use Photoshop, the card that comes with mini seems powerful enough. I also remember reading somewhere that Adobe software does not utilize graphics cards much anyways (I guess, in order to avoid tweaking their code for all those grahics chips out there.) For all those freaking out over this issue, I am yet to see any PC under $600 that has a Core Duo, DVD writer and a dedicated graphics card along with 802.11b/g. I am not even going into the size and the "looks."

 

[pjkelnhofer]

So, I was trying to convince a friend to buy a MacBook Pro for college. And one of the benefits (as I explained to him) is that once he buys a MacBook Pro he can check MacRumors every hour to see when the next Macbook Pro is coming out.

Lo and behold, I go to MacRumors and see a 5-minute old post about updated MacBook Pros (and MacBooks).

So many reasons to buy one.

You don't need to check MacRumors to find that out. Just always assume that the next version is coming out "Next Tuesday". Like the PowerBook G5s!

 

[MacRumorsReader]

You might as well order your MBP now.

I cannot believe you people. You flame Apple for not offering cheap, barebones systems to increase market share. Yet, when Apple offers entry level desktops and laptops with integrated graphics to keep prices down, you freak out. You demand a desktop below $500 or a laptop under $1000, yet you think Core Solo is useless and integrated graphics chip is junk. If anything, Apple is not going far enough, they should drop nice features such as iSight, remote etc that a lot of people may not be able to afford and offer a really entry-level model.

BTW, if you use Photoshop, GMA900 seems powerful enough. I also remember reading somewhere that Adobe software does not utilize graphics cards much anyways (I guess, in order to avoid tweaking their code for all those grahics chips out there.) For all those freaking out over this issue, I am yet to see any PC under $600 that has a Core Duo, DVD writer and a dedicated graphics card along with 802.11b/g. I am not even going into the size and the "looks."

Don't worry about me. I'll pay for it. I'll pay the (preceived) Apple premium. I just like the form factor of my 12" PB. If they make the high end MacBook perform like the MBP but smaller, I'm all over it.

Otherwise, I'll get the 15.4" MBP because 17" just seems HUGE.

Then, come Christmas, I'm hoping Apple has a nice present for me to buy for myself.

 

[dr_lha]

In Windows, a Radeon 9200 can run Star Wars Battlefront. The current iBook has a Radeon 9550. It may not be the most modern card but it's enough to play many/most modern PC games on lower settings.

I'm sorry, but the GMA 950 is a *downgrade*. Consumers want to play casual games too. We're not talking Half-Life 2 at max settings here. Consumers will play at 640x480 if it just runs.

Maybe you're sick of people complaining about it, but I'm sick of the apologists that keep saying, "Oh, you want to play casual games? Go spend twice as much on a pro machine! I don't care if you don't have that much money!". I can build a $400 PC with a Geforce FX 5200 that can play games the Mac Mini won't run. I want the iBook to be able to because I can't upgrade it at a later point.

Show me the evidence that that GMA950 can't play Star Wars Battlefront at 640x480. From what I've read the Mini does a decent job at World of Warcraft. E.g.:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/games/mac_wow_performance.html

One guy there reports 12FPS, but at a whopping 1920x1080, so I imagine at 640x480 it runs like a charm.

I still think you're overestimating the number of people who play games on their iBooks. Personally I know a bunch of students with iBooks (including my wife) and the Sudoku widget is about as far as it goes.

 

[Demon Hunter]

In a very refreshing way, Apple has high standards for HD. Unlike many manufacturers, they don't call something HD just because it can play some HD resolution out there (720p or 1080i).

Apple only calls something HD if it can play ALL HD resolutions out there. In other words, according to Apple, if it doesn't do 1080p, then it's not HD.

That's why the 20" display and iMac are not called HD by Apple...even though they will certainly do 720p.

Or they just want HD customers to pay more.

A 19-inch MacBook Pro would be sweet. But a third of your arm would be reaching for the keyboard.

 

[KindredMAC]

So help me God if they don't make a $999 model or cheaper!!!!!!

 

[Demon Hunter]

Show me the evidence that that GMA950 can't play Star Wars Battlefront at 640x480. From what I've read the Mini does a decent job at World of Warcraft. E.g.:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/games/mac_wow_performance.html

One guy there reports 12FPS, but at a whopping 1920x1080, so I imagine at 640x480 it runs like a charm.

I still think you're overestimating the number of people who play games on their iBooks. Personally I know a bunch of students with iBooks (including my wife) and the Sudoku widget is about as far as it goes.

World of Warcraft is a poor example. That game was designed to run on the most meagre of setups. It runs on machines below 1GHz.

 

[milo]

I think it is a bad idea to rename the ibook to MacBook. There is not enough difference between MacBook Pro. People will get confused. Plus, the name iBook is so well known now, to change it doesn't make any sense.

Macbook is the one that is smaller and cheaper. What's to confuse? And being well known didn't stop them from dumping powerbook. "iBook" doesn't have "mac" in it. Game over. Give it a rest already.

should we expect a "MacPod" soon.

Let's see. Is the iBook a mac? Yes. Is the iPod a mac? No. Mac is a kind of computer. Apple is the brand name of the company. Any other questions?

I think people will forgive the MacBook name when they see how the new machines tear the old G4's a new one. Just like they did with the MBP.

now theres a big plus and 720p is about all the low core solos and low core duos can manage its only the >1.8 that seem to manage 1080p

It's been said, but it's worth repeating. The duos handle 1080 just fine. And the integrated video on the minis is fine as well, it works great for everything but high end games, and nobody expects a budget laptop to be a gaming powerhouse. I'd much rather see them keep the price down than add a graphics card.

 

[macpastor]

1280x720 (16:9) is an odd resolution for Apple who prefers to use 16:10. I thought they'd go for 1280x800.

Making room for the iSight, just like the MBP?

 

[dr_lha]

World of Warcraft is a poor example. That game was designed to run on the most meagre of setups. It runs on machines below 1GHz.

Fair enough. How about this page:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=287515

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.

 

[milo]

I use a 12" Powerbook as my sole computer for Photoshop and significant design work - integrated graphics would be a no-go for me. I want a small but very powerful laptop.

Why? For photoshop, integrated graphics don't give you anything. All they improve is realtime 3d. What part of photoshop needs realtime 3d acceleration?

Note that "integrated video" doesn't imply no dual monitor support? Or am I missing something?

Consumers want to play casual games too. We're not talking Half-Life 2 at max settings here. Consumers will play at 640x480 if it just runs.

Sounds like you're describing the mini. What "casual games" are you under the impression won't run on a mini?

 

[macpastor]

But what I WANT is a 12" MBP!
It seems like such a bad move from apple to cut out the pros who want a portable machine. I hope it isn't true.

I had a 12" Powerbook... it never was in the same class as the 15" and 17" I think it was less pro than the other two. It seems right to combine the iBook and the 12" PB and give a grand computer! I only hope they go with aluminum and not the plastic crap. The iBook always mars, and looks terrible, in my opinion. What could be even better than that? A choice of colors, just like the iPod mini. How cool would that be?

 

[Moshiiii]

Could somone explain to me what Integrated Graphics are?

 

[dr_lha]

I had a 12" Powerbook... it never was in the same class as the 15" and 17" I think it was less pro than the other two.

I hear this opinion all the time on Mac sites. In what way was the 12" less pro than the other two. The only reason I can think is that it's languished for a long time without being upgraded.

However when it first came out, I think you have a difficult time arguing it wasn't a pro machine.

 

[dr_lha]

Could somone explain to me what Integrated Graphics are?

Something that makes people go batsh1t insane on Mac forums.

 

[kahos]

Fair enough. How about this page:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=287515

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.

It might be because I used to be an "hardcore" pc gamer, but I believe you have very low standards to call a came running at 20 fps playable, especially since its a FPS.

 

[Zmmyt]

*waits for 10.5 first*

Seriously, I bought iLife '06 and that's the most updating I'll do. I'll just wait for iLife '07 and 10.5 to come standard on whatever new Mac I pick. Still, the more revisions before then the better. Bring them out sooner!

Same here. I'll wait till 10.5.3 or so, then I'll check for new Hardware.

 

[dr_lha]

It might be because I used to be an "hardcore" pc gamer, but I believe you have very low standards to call a came running at 20 fps playable, especially since its a FPS.

I don't think the Mac mini is supposed to be a games machine like some others.

I'm just contesting the idea that the Mac mini won't even run these games as some have said here.

Casual gamers will find 20-25fps fine for FPS games IMHO. If not they should damn well go out and buy a gaming PC.