i don't get why everyone thinks the MBP is overdue for an update. I agree it would be nice, but realistically, Apple doesn't need to update the MBP right now since it's selling faster than they can make them. The standard MB's and the mac mini (and maybe iMac?) will likely be the target here since the santarosa's major contribution is the improved ONBOARD graphics set which is what really hinders both the MB and the mini right now.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Santa Rosa' Shipping from Intel Next Month (May)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So why dont you get a dell
I actually switched from a gateway to the macbook. I used to be a graphics card whore, but that has gotten too expensive. That and I have a 360 to play games on. I am perfectly content with my macbook.
I was just saying, the market Apple goes after doesn't include computer game players. Not sure how anyone could argue otherwise.
Although computer game players are willing to part with a grip of change for the latest kit... Apple could make a killing if they ever did target them.
I dont. You right! But I think they do it on purpose. In my mind if you wanna play games get a desktop or one of the consoles if you prefer. Its not that expensive. If someone can afford MBP Im sure buying 360, PS3 or Wii will NOT make a significant dent in his budget. All Im trying to say that I love apple form factor and card alsi is not all that bad. So I prefer sacrafice a little of GPU and have pleasure looking on my computer. I own a blac macbook and to tell you the truth I dont think that integrated GPU is bad. Granted I dont play games on it. But I also have MBP (work) and dont see gigantic difference (as long as Im not in illustrator or photoshop).
using photoshop
That's the point!
If there are better graphics it would be better for softwares , AND gamings :d
That's the point!
If there are better graphics it would be better for softwares , AND gamings :d
WHAAAAAT!?!
No, they're not even in the same league. You're talking about a part that has 4 ROPS versus one with 20. One that was low end when it was introduced, and one that was high end (now mid-range, but still).It's bigger than that in real games (versus donut marks). They're not remotely in the same league.
Yeah, and the thing is too-here at my university I notice a LOT of people who are buying Macbooks and combining that with a Windows PC kept around for gaming. If Apple had a good GPU in the Macbook Pro, at least some of those people would instead give that money to Apple (in the form of the price difference between those two systems).
And of course some people would buy the system period, versus going with a Dell.
The whole point of going Intel was keeping up with the Joneses, who happen to be Dell, Sony, et al. They will all have Santa Rosa models out of the gate.
Following this strategy, Apple will update the laptop line nearly as swiftly as the Wintel builders do.
What could hinder roll out is Leopard. We don't know how seriously broken it remains. If Leopard isn't too far off, so might be brand new MBPs. Apple would hold off a bit on the reasonable assumption that all the buzz from a major OS release can help it sell more hardware. But if Leopard is a mess and keeps slipping, the MBPs will be out much sooner, and I'll be right there to buy one, Leopard or no Leopard.
It's not that the current MBP is overdue for an update, it's the fact that these new chips are coming out and Apple needs to stay current with the likes of Dell and other PC companies, or they will lose sales. Santa Rosa offers more than animproved onboard graphics set. I am excited for the faster bus, more memory, better battery life and NAND technology which will improve application start up time. Besides, Apple isn't going to give the mini or MB Santa Rosa before the MBP. Who would by a MBP then when the MB will have a better chip at 1/2 the price.
This would be correct if the bus was increased from 32 bits to 33 bits. Since the address space has been extended to 64 bits, they could still address about 16 exabytes after subtracting a good chunk to I/O etc. 16 exabytes should be enough for running both Photoshop and Final Cut Studio, but it might be hard to make room in the MBP though...
Chip Testing Question
Anyone know...
When Intel announces a new chip, how long have companies like Apple, Dell, etc. been testing said chip on their hardware? With their OSes?
Do those companies' results effect launch dates of Intel's products? Meaning, if there are some issues with how the chip performs in (say) Vista but not OSX (or on varying hardware configs), would Intel delay a launch until all parties are happy or do they just do their own thing independent of others?
I would imagine that Apple has had Leopard running on SR (and the next couple of upcoming chips) in their labs. Just as I would also imagine Intel has the latest (even future Apple, Dell, etc.) product in their labs as well. Are these far fetched assumptions?
I'm just trying to gain an understanding of how close Intel and (in this case) Apple work together and how those relationships effect product cycles, release dates, etc. It appears the Intel switch was a smart move. But it makes it harder, for a random user like me, to connect all the dots. Was a bit easier to see how PPC dates would effect Mac dates, and vice versa. Not so much under Intel.
When I think of finally upgrading the family's G4/500 and iBook/500 (both of which are so incredibly long in the tooth, to the point of useless), I wonder if getting a Santa Rosa Mac, pre-Leopard, would be a mistake in terms of processor/OS compatibility & performance when I do eventually upgrade to Leopard?
Anyone know...
When Intel announces a new chip, how long have companies like Apple, Dell, etc. been testing said chip on their hardware? With their OSes?
Do those companies' results effect launch dates of Intel's products? Meaning, if there are some issues with how the chip performs in (say) Vista but not OSX (or on varying hardware configs), would Intel delay a launch until all parties are happy or do they just do their own thing independent of others?
I would imagine that Apple has had Leopard running on SR (and the next couple of upcoming chips) in their labs. Just as I would also imagine Intel has the latest (even future Apple, Dell, etc.) product in their labs as well. Are these far fetched assumptions?
I'm just trying to gain an understanding of how close Intel and (in this case) Apple work together and how those relationships effect product cycles, release dates, etc. It appears the Intel switch was a smart move. But it makes it harder, for a random user like me, to connect all the dots. Was a bit easier to see how PPC dates would effect Mac dates, and vice versa. Not so much under Intel.
When I think of finally upgrading the family's G4/500 and iBook/500 (both of which are so incredibly long in the tooth, to the point of useless), I wonder if getting a Santa Rosa Mac, pre-Leopard, would be a mistake in terms of processor/OS compatibility & performance when I do eventually upgrade to Leopard?
This would be correct if the bus size was all that mattered, and if the bus size was increased from 32 bits to 64bits. Since the address space on the processor was extended sometime last year (at C2D introduction) to something like 40 bits (physical, ie RAM lines) and 48 bits (virtual, ie MMU support), the current systems should still be able to address 512 gigabytes with the same left over for IO.
Of course, this doesn't matter because it doesn't matter a damn on current Intel systems what the CPU can address if the northbridge (containing the memory controller) doesn't support it.
The current mobile platform (napa) uses a controller that can address 4GB. Hence current mobiles can have 3GB physical RAM and the other 1GB is used for IO.
The northbridge used in the Santa Rosa platform however supports an 8GB address space. Hence SR-based systems will likey support 6-7GB of physical RAM maximum.
So, 6-7GB. Not 16 exabytes.
I wouldn't worry about Leopard compatibility. It'll work fine. Heck, 10.3 and 10.4 are supposed to run better on G3 systems than 10.2 and below do!
Most likely Apple would have had prerelease hardware for some time now, and if they have a new design, they'd have been working on that prior to getting the new chip. It's possible they're ramping up production on new stuff right now, as they get shipped the new chips from Intel.
I am SO glad they switched! It was just silly, when Windows notebooks were getting ever faster Pentium M chips...and Apple still had the G4.
I heard that Intel was already showing off the Penryn last week in Beijing. I bet their big customers already have a test platform.
Engineering samples are out for months before release. I remember Core 2 benchmarks and samples showing up 4-6 months before release.
This was so convincing that I had to check it up. You're closer to the truth than I was, but still wrong. The 965 chipset has 36 bits addressing space, allowing the CPU to address 64GB of "memory", with addressing set aside for 8GB of DRAM memory. So even if we "waste" more on non-RAM addressing than before, we will still be able to use the full 8GB. Not that I'd expect any notebook to support more than 4GB (or 2 memory banks), though. 4GB should be adequate for me for the next 3 years, so I'm fine with that.
The one thing I'm really hoping for is a redesign in the macbook pro that allows one to easily slide a new drive in and out like the macbook currently does. Overall, I really love the powerbook/macbook pro design. There aren't many things that really need to be changed. The whole package is pretty sublime. If I were to change anything, I'd probably just change the design of the keyboard to be more like the macbook, and just have the backlight remain.
I doubt that Apple would release a SR MB before a MBP. So, the "consumer" laptop would have a faster FSB than the "pro" model? Not likely.
I do agree that the new graphics ship for the MB is going to be a huge improvement over the GMA950. But Apple will not do this at the expense of their flagship laptop.
Yep. That's what I keep saying. If it had that one feature, I'd probably already own the current model. If I end up getting a Macbook instead, literally the ONLY reason would be the non-user replaceable hard drive.
Ya lost me there
I've only touched the Macbook once, but I'm assuming based on playing with Sony laptops with similar keys that I'd HATE that flat design. I mean there's a reason almost every keyboard on Earth has a similar design!My understanding is the Macbook Pro has a more normal keyboard that's one of the best on a laptop, and can actually be used for heavy typing.
But geez...when I think about it, I may go with a Macbook over a Pro, and here's how this breaks down:
Macbook Pro advantages:
-larger screen
-better GPU
-faster CPU
-regular DVI port
-better keyboard
Macbook advantages:
-user replaceable hard drive.
ONE advantage in my eyes, and that's enough to out weigh all those other advantages
hmmmmm NOPE
Since Apple doesn't have to deal with such a variety of hardware components like Micro$oft, Apple should be ready to handle that ...
cheers,
Andreas
Since Apple doesn't have to deal with such a variety of hardware components like Micro$oft, Apple should be ready to handle that ...
cheers,
Andreas
There's a few other benefits...
- smaller
- cheaper
- excellent value for money (e.g. in comparison with it's competition)
- it looks great in black
- uses a smaller power supply
These are important decisions. Not everyone needs a big beastie as some of us lug these things around daily. And seats in coach (economy) are getting well small.
Nobody's mentioned a replacement for the 12" PowerBook that's long overdue. I do wish they'd implement a low power, long battery life, small MacBook Pro. It's definitely missing in the product line and would be a great candidate for the TurboRobsonInjection cache that hopefully will result in the hard disc spinning less, and LED backlights resulting in lower power drain.
Just a thought.