Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple insiders confirmed the company will refresh its notebook lineups in June, which comes as no surprise since all Centrino partners indicated they will announce notebooks based on the new Montevina Centrino 2.

Don't expect just the same old notebooks from January this June.[/B] The upcoming second-generation Penryn mobile processors require the new Socket B motherboards."

This justifies a redesign. And if I have to explain why, then you just dont understand the tech.

Makes sense to me. Probably something close to the Macbook Air. The Air's tapered shape is cool because it doen's bend (and consequently squeak) why you hold it by one corner.Depending on how much thinner the MBP will get, the tapered shape might be necessary. I love the Macbook's keyboard (love the sloped standalone keyboard even more) and hope the MBP gets these too.

When you think of it, there isn't that much to improve. I don't know if the magenetic latch would work as nicely on the Macbook pros as it does on the 13" models. There are 2 magnets on the top edge of the screen bezel. When you open the lid, there's quite some bending happening on the display. This might get problematic on larger sized displays. Don't get me wrong, the metal hooks are fa better than those ugly mechanisms seen on other laptops but they're still dirt catchers and breakable mechanicle parts. With the magnets, you don't see them, you can't break them and there won't be finger dirt accumulating in the hole below the trackpad.

One cool thing would be the ability to swap hard drives easily. The Mac Pros have those little drawer things that you can just pop out. It should still require a screwdriver though. I'm not comfprtable with the idea that anyone could take the hard drive from my Macbook Pro which is secured via kensington lock. :D
 
Good job, Intel. :) Apple could use some pushing. :p

I don't know if that's good or bad.

It's good because Intel caused Apple to update things that were due for updates.

But I'm kind of concerned because it means that Intel has a lot of control over Apple now. I'm kind of scared what will happen to Apple if Intel decides that it doesn't like Apple anymore. They could completely stop selling to Apple and then... well, things would suck. :(
 
I don't know if that's good or bad.

It's good because Intel caused Apple to update things that were due for updates.

But I'm kind of concerned because it means that Intel has a lot of control over Apple now. I'm kind of scared what will happen to Apple if Intel decides that it doesn't like Apple anymore. They could completely stop selling to Apple and then... well, things would suck. :(

Apple is their customer. I am sure Intel is happy that Apple uses their processors, and not AMD.
 
Heat on the MBP

Has anyone with a new macbook pro installed I-Stat pro to see if the temps went down?
 
Penryn L2 cache, why so small?

I don't know much about CPU design, but the way I see it L2 cache is something like RAM directly associated/integrated to the CPU so it can be accessed much faster. Then why are the L2 caches still so small? I remember buying Intel processors with 2 and 4MB cache already many years ago, and now they still hover around 3 to 6MB with the latest Penryn. Is this cache not that important after all, or what would happen if Intel bumped the cache up to say 1GB. Would that increase the speed dramatically, not at all, just the heat the chip produces and the power it consumes, or what?

Maybe somebody could please put a little more clarity in this.
 
Here is a spreadsheet I made comparing various options (as a comma delimited text file). It might be useful for anyone who might be shopping around. It compares MB/MBP, Refurb/New, (with EDU pricing on the New), and a 4GB Ram upgrade option.

Looks cool, there is also the Mac Guide: [guide]Which Apple notebook should I buy?[/guide]

If I were buying today, I might be tempted to just get the low-end MB and put 4gb of ram in it. (A superdrive would be nice, but I can live without it.) It's a tough call between the refurb MBP and the new one.

:)

Don't get your RAM from Apple, that will save you loads ;).
 
Interesting that Apple is changing so much, even more appealing to me is that they did at least 1 thing every tuesday...!!!:eek:

Also, the new MBP doesn't have the Apple logo on the command key anymore, it now says command or cmd.

That's a deal breaker for my daughter (aged 2 1/2). Sometimes she sits beside me when I'm studying and says "Press de Apple one, Daddy"
 
Buy now. Apple is going to milk this release for all it's worth, that is to say they'll wait until most kids wanting to buy a MBP will crack under pressure in September. You'll see the update no sooner than October, after the iPod deal is over.

Strongly agree-- the other issue is waiting and then going for a Rev A.

I currently have a Rev A MBP (2.16 GHz/CD/7200 HDD/2 GB RAM) -- it is probably my best computer purchase in my 20 years of buying machines, but those first few months were a bit rough (logic board replaced, etc). The machine runs flawlessly, but I'm using more PS3 and Aperture of late and more RAM would really help.

I could certainly hold out a bit more, but I think that any major redesign is not going to be as soon as people think and may represent a Rev A -- not sure I want to go down that road again so soon. It's actually the reason I held off on a MBA for work. Not to mention the fact that I may not *like* the redesign ;) .

So I think I will try to sell my current one and either buy the 2.5 GHz or a late refurb (the prices are great) --- I still like the current design, this is a late rev machine and should be stable as a rock AND with 4 GB of RAM it should be a real improvement over my current one.

I do hate the effort of selling laptops though....

JT
 
I don't believe the new lineup is shipping yet. According to the Apple rep I spoke to, they're still 2 weeks away.

Joe

Nope, a number of stores are carrying at least some of them. Mostly the base 15.4" model -- there is an unboxing thread somewhere on the forum.

JT
 
Reading through the posts, I think I have detected some 10 year olds that still try to convince themselves that they did the right thing buying the MBP one month ago. Well, if you bought it because was an absolute necessity, nothing more to say. But if you did it because you could not wait anymore...That was a stupid decision.

Just assume it was stupid or don't, but don't come here trying to convince us that this update is not good:

Monday: for 2 grand you get 2.2 old processor, 160 GB HD, 128 Mb VRAM
Tuesday: for 2 grand you get 2.4 new processor, 200 GB HD, 256 Mb VRAM and Multitouch.

How in hell this is bad for the customer?. You get more for the same money and it was what reasonably expected.
No Blu-ray?---Come on! there's not even a slot blu-ray drive out there.
No redesign?--- That was known and it is expected to happen later this year. By the way, how is that affecting your experience with the computer?. Is it gonna open Safari faster just because it looks prettier?...
No Quad processors?--- Those haven't even been designed yet for laptops.

Am I forgetting something?. Please shut up and admit that you made the wrong decision. The new computers are better than the old ones for the same money, so YOU LOST MONEY WITH THE TRANSACTION. Full stop.
 
I stat pro

I don't believe the new lineup is shipping yet. According to the Apple rep I spoke to, they're still 2 weeks away.

Joe
I ordered mine yesterday MBP 15" 2.4 200gig 7200rpm and this morning says shipped. Also I read yesterday people were picking them up at Apple stores already. Thats why I was wondering if anyone knew if the temps went down.
 
Just arrived

I ordered mine yesterday MBP 15" 2.4 200gig 7200rpm and this morning says shipped. Also I read yesterday people were picking them up at Apple stores already. Thats why I was wondering if anyone knew if the temps went down.

I ordered mine (Macbook 2.4) yesterday from the Apple UK store, it arrived about an hour ago.
 
Huh? It's the key with the apple symbol on it; doesn't seem that hard to describe to me.
You've obviously never worked in customer service. :D

My brother finally got over it when he pictured that every person on the other end of the call was really Homer Simpson. Then he was finally explain things to them (or at least not get as frustrated). ;)
 
I love how Apple continually strips what it ships down to the bare minimum...

Removing the Apple Remote...come on!
That is pretty lame. But a tad less lame than removing the USB to electrical outlet adapter for the iPod charger. "What? I don't get a free remote control to watch videos on my laptop from a distance? Bummer. What? I have to pay extra if I want to charge my music player with actual electricity like any normal appliance?!"
 
I agree with this. I would never buy a 15 or 17-inch MBP, because of both the price and the size, but I would make a 12-inch MBP my next computer purchase if it existed. I basically want a small-footprint computer that has a good graphics card and a good-sized HD, and processor specs equivalent to a MB. That's pretty much it.

Absolutely, me too, ditto!
 
MacBook replaced by MacBook Air.

Can anyone imagine the MacBook totally going away and the MacBook Air taking it's place if the price of the Air could ever come down?
 
Benchmarks

Some quick Geekbench scores from my new standard white Macbook 2.4GHz in case anyone's interested:

Geekbench score: 3063
Integer: 2692
Floating Point: 4340
Memory: 2210
Stream: 1598

Edit: Hmm, take these with a pinch of salt, Geekbench results don't seem to be very reproducible. I'm seeing results varying between 3060 and ~3150. Odd.
 
I don't know much about CPU design, but the way I see it L2 cache is something like RAM directly associated/integrated to the CPU so it can be accessed much faster. Then why are the L2 caches still so small? I remember buying Intel processors with 2 and 4MB cache already many years ago, and now they still hover around 3 to 6MB with the latest Penryn. Is this cache not that important after all, or what would happen if Intel bumped the cache up to say 1GB. Would that increase the speed dramatically, not at all, just the heat the chip produces and the power it consumes, or what?

Maybe somebody could please put a little more clarity in this.

Onyro, I agree with you on this... I been searching for answers for this questions but can not find any.
 
Some quick Geekbench scores from my new standard white Macbook 2.4GHz in case anyone's interested:

Geekbench score: 3063
Integer: 2692
Floating Point: 4340
Memory: 2210
Stream: 1598

For anybody keeping track, that's a 6.6% improvement over the previous 2.2Ghz Santa Rosa MacBooks with the stock 1GB RAM. The 9% increase in processor frequency and doubling of RAM gives you a 6.6.% improvement in Geekbench. Right now you can buy a black Santa Rosa MB for $1049 refurb or $1099 on some college campuses. I would say that is the better deal.
 
...but don't come here trying to convince us that this update is not good:

Monday: for 2 grand you get 2.2 old processor, 160 GB HD, 128 Mb VRAM
Tuesday: for 2 grand you get 2.4 new processor, 200 GB HD, 256 Mb VRAM and Multitouch.

How in hell this is bad for the customer?

Agreed. I've been waiting for this update, I purchased it the minute it came out. It's not an 'earth shattering' update, but I wasn't expecting a totally new redesign with lots of wiz-bang features. I wanted a solid, non rev.a machine, with a predictable upgrade in performance. Apple gave it to me.

If on some chance, Apple updates this July (not gonna happen), who cares? I buy my laptops only when needed. If my purchase window overlaps a predicted refresh, I wait till the release, or the end of my window, which ever comes first. It ain't rocket science.:cool:
 
Onyro, I agree with you on this... I been searching for answers for this questions but can not find any.

Cache memory is expensive. It needs to perform to higher specs than standard RAM. e.g. it needs to run at the processor frequency (~2Ghz) rather than the bus frequency (~800Mhz). Also because it is integrated with the processor, a defect in the cache would mean tossing out the chip or selling the chip with a smaller usuable cache. So Intel could try to make a chip with 8MB cache, but it would be expensive and the process likely not efficient enough, so they would end up with a bunch of chips with 4MB cache and have to sell the 8MB chips at a high premium to recoup the costs. In fact I think manufacturers have done something like this in the past when trying to push the cache sizes. Finally caches only help performance when instructions being processed need to fetch stored instructions or data. To oversimplify, once the instructions are completed, the cache can be reused for the next set of instructions. So cache only needs to go up in proportion to the number of instructions executed per clock cycle (IPCs). This has maybe doubled in several years, so cache has doubled. Regardless performance is only helped by several percent going from a small cache (some Pentiums used to have only 128k, I recall, but then the Pentiums always did have lower IPCs) to a big one because most of the time the processor doesn't need all that temporary cache memory.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.