Electronista said:
The 17-inch
EliteBook 8730w is the first known notebook to use a true Intel mobile quad-core processor rather than repurposed desktop parts and thus has
the same size and battery performance of regular 17-inch systems.
...
The mobile workstation ... has the choice of
an NVIDIA Quadro FX video chipset with 1GB of memory that can accelerate advanced 3D.
...
Two smaller
15.4-inch systems, the EliteBook 8530p and 8530w, will also have the option of the
quad-core processor and come with as much as 8GB of memory when they ship in September, starting at a slightly lower $1,499.
...
The 8730w borrows the similar color accuracy development as the PC maker's recent
DreamColor desktop display and outputs
a full 16 million colors versus the 260,000 of most existing notebook LCD panels
Looks like the MacBook Pro will be left in the dust.
As I don't expect the MacBook Pro to get quad-core until H1 2010, it is realized that Apple's top laptop will have about half the theoretical performance of PC laptops not too much bigger for over a year.
Apple's obsession with thin and light on pro hardware is now costing them in terms of performance. Apple's obsession with crippling the MacBook means that the MacBook Pro has to fill the $2000 area as well as the $2500~$3000 area, and so is costing them in terms of high-end components. Would it be that bad to make the 17" MacBook Pro thicker and more powerful? Don't many who buy it use it as a desktop replacement anyway? As is, they aren't much different except for an extra USB port and high-res displays. The latter
could be solved, but Apple isn't, since a 1680*1050 15" MacBook Pro would evidently eliminate the differentiation between the 15" and 17". So why not increase the differentiation by making the 17" better? (The 15" can't move down because apparently a MacBook Pro with a smaller display and a low-end discrete GPU is otherwise known as a MacBook with a GPU, which is supposedly too close to the regular MacBook.)
Perhaps the first comment on the second link summed things up.
splendic said:
With prices like these available for this kind of hardware, I'm always shocked that Apple can stay in business, and I don't say this as a windows fan, but as smart consumer.
Now, let's say Apple did release a thicker and more powerful 17" MacBook Pro. And the MacBook would get thinner than 1" because of the new 25 W (as opposed to 35 W) CPUs. So basically we would have a smooth progression of display sizes and thicknesses:
13" MacBook (.9") -- 15" MacBook Pro (1.0") -- 17" MacBook Pro (1.25")
What about the MacBook Air? It's thinner than the MacBook but more expensive. How would this fit? Well, it'll take a few years. The latest rumors point to significantly increased CPU and HD specs. So Apple could drop the price while offering a similar set of specs as today's MacBook Air. This would continue revision after revision, as the MacBook Air gets cheaper and cheaper.
From the other side, the MacBook would get more expensive. We've already seen this from the MacBook going up from $999 to $1099 and staying there. The aluminum case could also mean that the MacBook could become more like a MacBook Pro, in other words, moving up.
The two lines would cross seamlessly, as they are two different model lines with two different markets. And when the crossover is done, we get, much like the Mac mini - iMac - Mac Pro lineups and the iPod shuffle - iPod nano - iPod touch lineups:
11" 1280*800 MacBook Air (.16"~.76") -- 13" 1440*900 MacBook (.9") -- 15" 1680*1050 MacBook Pro (1.0") -- 17" 1920*1200 MacBook Pro (1.25")
That's one interesting possibility (never mind its likelihood).
