I don't want Quad Core on my lap.
What I want is really a laptop - something I can comfortably place on my lap....
And I'm yet to see any real reason to have a Quad core, when all your mobile needs are more than satisfied with Dual core.
Two cores was a real breakthrough, with four we don't get enough of advantage if any. that is in a real world "performance apps".
Right. And why would anyone want more than 640K RAM in their computer? DOS 5 can't make proper use of Extended Memory anyhow.
The tools I am using on my new MacBook Pro (mostly Visual Studio 2005 on VMWare-virtualized XP Pro) do not make effective use of multi-core - in VS2005, you can only compile separate projects simultaneously, but I mostly work with one C++ project that contains many source files that will be compiled one after another. So a dual core with high single-threaded performance is optimal for my purposes. One core compiles while the other core keeps my UI running smoothly. Also, VMWare Fusion currently only supports two processors per virtual machine. I am in fact very satisfied with the processor performance of the MacBook Pro. It's simply blazingly fast.
BUT many people do work with applications that can already make use of 4 cores (Motion, Photoshop, Final Cut etc. etc.). And more recent rsp. future versions of the tools I am using will support quad core better - Visual Studio 2008 supposedly can make use of multi-core, and VMWare ESX can handle up to 4 virtual CPUs per VM, so I suppose it's only a matter of time until Fusion will handle that as well.
What I want [in a laptop ... with mobile CPU] is more battery life, less heat, less bulk, girth & weight.
On the 2.6GHz Penryn and LED MacBook Pro, I get 3.5 to 4 hours of battery life writing and compiling actual code using virtualized Visual Studio. I get 5+ hours surfing the web wirelessly, 4.5 hours if I also listen to music over the speakers. If that isn't amazing, I don't know what is. Of course there are ultra-portables with longer battery life, but they don't have anywhere near the performance of the MBP when I actually need it. Apple does a great job combining a powerful desktop replacement and a mobile computer in a single device. I bet they would be able to do that with four cores as well, especially if you consider that the current Intel quad-cores consist of two dual-core dies in a single package. If the OS determines that two cores have been mostly idle for some time, it could flush the shared cache and then switch off the entire die. Of course, you will not get 5 or more hours of battery life rendering movies, but your battery life will not be significantly harmed as long as you don't use the machine's full power. In terms of power consumption, you will only pay for what you use.
What I want is 14-15" MBA Pro. With 2.5Ghz & 9400mGT. And with 25W full speed CPU weeks away, this is much more feasible.
The first update to the MBA will very likely include Penryns, and they will likely be higher clocked than the current Meroms (not necessarily @2.5GHz though), so you might be lucky. Dedicated graphics hardware however is much less likely. A faster Intel chip, on the other hand - the upcoming X4500 - is not too unlikely though.
So I hope Apple ignores dreamers & pseudo-professionals, and passes on "mobile" Quad Core for now,
Right, everyone who doesn't do things your way, or sees the world your way, is a dreamer and pseudo-professional. Thank God we aren't arrogant, are we?
The only chance I see for a "Mobile" Quad, is if Apple decides on fourth family of books, along the lines of not really successful DTRs, which survived only as extreme gaming rigs for "gamers on the run".
You have seriously no clue about mobile power-saving technologies. The 35W TDP does not mean that a 45nm Quad will be as hot as a 65nm Duo most of the time. On the contrary, as for the 45nm Duos, the idle power consumption will likely be much less. The power consumption surfing the web will be much less. Only under full load will it be as hot as the Merom, but it will also be way more powerful. The gist is that a 45nm Quad will still use a lot less energy to perform the same amount of work. This is the point that you have been missing all along.
