This is going to sound really crazy (NEW MBPs)

mitchleeh

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 14, 2008
134
14
I know this is going to sound crazy, but please hear me out
(Please ignore the MacBook and MacBook Pro rebranding).

1. In October, 2008 Apple updated the 13" and 15" MacBook Pros updated to unibody design (and internals etc etc).

2. In January, 2009 Apple updated the 17" to match 13" and 15" (except with built in battery).

3. In June, 2009 Apple updated the 13" and 15" (with built in battery etc.)

4. In April, 2010 Apple updated all MBPs.

So let's look at the time between updates roughly...
From October to to January there was roughly 3 months.
Then from January to June it was roughly 6 months.
From June to April it was roughly too long.

I want to update to the newest/fastest 13" - but I'm not completely happy with the lack of Intel's newest chips and screen options. I'm not in a huge hurry to upgrade, so this is more of speculation. Do you think they might update the 13" again before the beginning of September?

Give me your thoughts before ripping this idea to threads. What I hope to happen is that I get a new 13" MBP with the back to school promo before it ends. If there is no update before then, I will probably settle with the top of the line 13" regardless...
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
I'm almost certain the next update will be a major one because if Apple has to redesign the entire logic board on the 13" to fit an i processor with a decent GPU then they might as well redo the entire line. Make all of the screens 16:9 with IPS technology along with increasing the resolution.

Think of it like going from a 24" iMac to a 27" iMac, different but not radically different.

I'd personally wait until the next update.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
I'm almost certain the next update will be a major one because if Apple has to redesign the entire logic board on the 13" to fit an i processor with a decent GPU then they might as well redo the entire line. Make all of the screens 16:9 with IPS technology along with increasing the resolution.

Think of it like going from a 24" iMac to a 27" iMac, different but not radically different.

I'd personally wait until the next update.
That's just your opinion, there is no facts or rumors backing it up...

Apple COULD have fit i3 in 13" BUT, it's not that much of an upgrade from C2D. It doesn't support Turbo Boost so you are limited to 2.26GHz and the worst thing is that it has an IGP which has to be used (AFAIK). It's also 35W while current chips are 25W. Then a dedicated GPU would draw power too, making it hotter and shortening the battery life.

24" to 27" was different as the physical size changed, 13" won't go 16".
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
That's just your opinion, there is no facts or rumors backing it up...

Apple COULD have fit i3 in 13" BUT, it's not that much of an upgrade from C2D. It doesn't support Turbo Boost so you are limited to 2.26GHz and the worst thing is that it has an IGP which has to be used (AFAIK). It's also 35W while current chips are 25W. Then a dedicated GPU would draw power too, making it hotter and shortening the battery life.

24" to 27" was different as the physical size changed, 13" won't go 16".
Well the fact that Intel is going to stop production of Core 2 Duo's this year is certainly worth noting. Again, if Apple is going to spend the time to redesign the entire logic board on the 13" might as well redo the design.

And no, they just physically couldn't fit an i processor without having to use Intel's graphics.

Also by the time they do the redesign Sandy Bridge will likely already be out meaning the watt spiel you just put on will have no relevance.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
Well the fact that Intel is going to stop production of Core 2 Duo's this year is certainly worth noting.
Source?

That's just an assumption. There are 13" iX laptops with dedicated GPU, but as I said and as the article said, i3 is too slow and makes it hot and expensive as dedicated GPU is needed.

Also by the time they design to do the redesign Sandy Bridge will likely already be out meaning the watt spiel you just put on will have no relevance.
How does the wattage have nothing to do with it? Sure, SB will be cooler as it concentrates on power efficiency but that still a year away! There is likely an update before that.

There is no proof of redesign.. MBPs have been pretty much the same since PowerBook G4
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
Just look around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

That's just an assumption. There are 13" iX laptops with dedicated GPU, but as I said and as the article said, i3 is too slow and makes it hot and expensive as dedicated GPU is needed.
No it isn't. Those 13" laptops have differently designed logic boards. Have you clicked the link I posted before? It's amazing how Apple fits anything on the 13"'s logic board.


How does the wattage have nothing to do with it? Sure, SB will be cooler as it concentrates on power efficiency but that still a year away! There is likely an update before that.
I doubt it. Apple has no reason to put another update out until Sandy Bridge arrives.

There is no proof of redesign.. MBPs have been pretty much the same since PowerBook G4
There was also no proof of an iMac redesign when the 27" was released. The MacBook Pro's are on a similar redesign cycle as the iMacs. The white iMac lasted a long time, that didn't stop Apple from redesigning the iMac sooner when the 27" came around.

White iMac > Aluminum iMac > Widescreen Aluminum iMac
Aluminum Matte MBP > Aluminum Glossy Unibody MacBook Pro > Aluminum Glossy Unibody Widescreen MBP
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
It says 2010 BUT there is nothing mentioned anywhere else and no source, so it's not reliable

I doubt it. Apple has no reason to put another update out until Sandy Bridge arrives.
Was there a reason to update iMacs in early 2009? No, but Apple still did it. Apple doesn't care about what's available, if they did, the update would've been in January when Arrandale was released.

There was also no proof of an iMac redesign when the 27" was released. The MacBook Pro's are on a similar redesign cycle as the iMacs. The white iMac lasted a long time, that didn't stop Apple from redesigning the iMac sooner when the 27" came around.

White iMac > Aluminum iMac > Widescreen Aluminum iMac
Aluminum Matte MBP > Aluminum Glossy Unibody MacBook Pro > Aluminum Glossy Unibody Widescreen MBP
So, why didn't Apple redesign them already? Why to wait till next update? You are again assuming that MBPs will follow iMacs. I understand why they did it for iMacs as people uses them as TVs so 16:9 is better than 16:10.

Most monitors are 16:9 nowadays but majority of laptops are still 16:10.

All you say comes from your head, none of them are facts. I respects your opinion but too many things are just assumptions with no backup
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
There's a chance of an update later this year, but I doubt it'll be by September. If you're getting it during the back to school period, you're already getting a good deal (student discount + free iPod). The current MacBooks are plenty powerful anyway. The mobile Core i5/ i7s are nowhere near as good as the ones in the iMac.
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
It says 2010 BUT there is nothing mentioned anywhere else and no source, so it's not reliable
It's plenty reliable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2#Successors

Was there a reason to update iMacs in early 2009? No, but Apple still did it. Apple doesn't care about what's available, if they did, the update would've been in January when Arrandale was released.
They only updated the graphics in the early 2009 iMacs. Nothing else. It was just a stop gap before the major update.

So, why didn't Apple redesign them already? Why to wait till next update? You are again assuming that MBPs will follow iMacs. I understand why they did it for iMacs as people uses them as TVs so 16:9 is better than 16:10.
Why didn't Apple redesign the iMacs in early 2009? Because they weren't ready for prime time. When they ran out of space, they redesigned them. Guess what... they have just run out of space on the 13".

Most monitors are 16:9 nowadays but majority of laptops are still 16:10.
False. HP, Dell, ASUS... there are a lot more 16:9 laptops these days than 16:10.

All you say comes from your head, none of them are facts. I respects your opinion but too many things are just assumptions with no backup
I'm using historical Apple refresh evidence. You on the other hand, are providing nothing to back up your statements.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,512
33
Singapore
i think apple went with the C2D for a number of reasons - mainly (as steve jobs said) to keep the price equal and the overall performance high. the C2D does perform better then its i3 counterpart - so it makes sense to keep the C2D!

its only the lowest end machine - people will be checking emails, playing songs etc and low powered tasks. i hardly think they will care ;)
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
"Intel has scheduled to discontinue some Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core 2, and even Core i7 models"

It also says that C2Ds might be renamed to i3. Still not reliable as it doesn't say that they all are going to be discontinued

Why didn't Apple redesign the iMacs in early 2009? Because they weren't ready for prime time. When they ran out of space, they redesigned them. Guess what... they have just run out of space on the 13".
So you think that Apple is coming up with 16", 19" and 22" MBPs? I'm pretty sure 13" will remain C2D if no cooler Nehalems are available, with SB it should get a new CPU, depending on SB specs though

I'm using historical Apple refresh evidence. You on the other hand, are providing nothing to back up your statements.
All my wattages are facts which can't be beaten by Apple. Last update was pretty major so I doubt next update is bringing anything special, maybe new GPUs and CPUs if Intel comes up with newer Arrandales.

Why was there a G5 iMac but no G5 PowerBook? Apple's refresh history isn't the most reliable ones, there are many odd cases. 16:9 would lower 13" resolution anyway
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
"Intel has scheduled to discontinue some Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core 2, and even Core i7 models"

It also says that C2Ds might be renamed to i3. Still not reliable as it doesn't say that they all are going to be discontinued
Ok, well when Intel discontinues the Core 2 Duo this year I guess that will be it. The chip is four years old. It would only make sense for Intel to discontinue it, but whatever. Believe what you like.

All my wattages are facts which can't be beaten by Apple. Last update was pretty major so I doubt next update is bringing anything special, maybe new GPUs and CPUs if Intel comes up with newer Arrandales.
It will be the same thing as the early 2009 iMacs. Either they will wait for Sandy Bridge and do a redesign or all they will do is put better graphics next minor bump and then do the redesign after that. It depends on how long they wait.

Why was there a G5 iMac but no G5 PowerBook? Apple's refresh history isn't the most reliable ones, there are many odd cases. 16:9 would lower 13" resolution anyway
Why was there a G5 iMac but no G5 PowerBook? Simple. IBM couldn't get their act together and make a decent mobile chip.

and 16:9 would not lower the resolution. It'll be like going from the 20" to the 21.5". 1680x1050 to 1920x1080
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,512
33
Singapore
Ok, well when Intel discontinues the Core 2 Duo this year I guess that will be it. The chip is four years old. It would only make sense for Intel to discontinue it, but whatever. Believe what you like.
discontinue doesnt mean they run out of stock immediately. apple might have a years worth of stock to get rid of!

Why was there a G5 iMac but no G5 PowerBook? Simple. IBM couldn't get their act together and make a decent mobile chip.
hmmmm... i dont think so - preeeeeeety sure that IBM COULDNT make them with low enough TDP so that the thing didnt melt down!
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
Ok, well when Intel discontinues the Core 2 Duo this year I guess that will be it. The chip is four years old. It would only make sense for Intel to discontinue it, but whatever. Believe what you like.
Most CPUs and mobos are C2Ds, why on earth would Intel stop making them? It's still very well performing chip, especially for lower end

It will be the same thing as the early 2009 iMacs. Either they will wait for Sandy Bridge and do a redesign or all they will do is put better graphics next minor bump and then do the redesign after that. It depends on how long they wait.
You are again assuming. Nothing is stopping Apple to use C2D and 320M in next gen 13". Megahertz myth is still very current along consumers, bigger numbers sell better.

Why was there a G5 iMac but no G5 PowerBook? Simple. IBM couldn't get their act together and make a decent mobile chip.
Same thing now. Intel isn't able to make a chip for 13" which wouldn't have IGP and would have lower TDP

and 16:9 would not lower the resolution. It'll be like going from the 20" to the 21.5". 1680x1050 to 1920x1080
13" ain't going to be bigger. It would drop from 1280x800 to 1280x720 unless  comes up with new resolution or 17" goes 2048x1152 which is more than unlikely

Neither of us is wrong or right. Only time will show us what's in Apple's head, we can only speculate :cool:
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
Most CPUs and mobos are C2Ds, why on earth would Intel stop making them? It's still very well performing chip, especially for lower end
Why? Well, why wouldn't the largest chip supplier want to sell you the newer chips for more? It's not like they have any competition in the mobile space. It's simple business.

You are again assuming. Nothing is stopping Apple to use C2D and 320M in next gen 13". Megahertz myth is still very current along consumers, bigger numbers sell better.
Much like you are assuming that Apple will stick with C2D. Apple can't stick with Core 2 Duo for much longer.

Same thing now. Intel isn't able to make a chip for 13" which wouldn't have IGP and would have lower TDP
Only difference is Apple has no choice but to use Intel. AMD's mobile chips are a joke at the moment.

13" ain't going to be bigger. It would drop from 1280x800 to 1280x720 unless  comes up with new resolution or 17" goes 2048x1152 which is more than unlikely
Why would that be unlikely? The 17" has had the same resolution for a while now. It was even the same resolution as the aluminum 24" iMac.
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
581
Finland
Why? Well, why wouldn't the largest chip supplier want to sell you the newer chips for more? It's not like they have any competition in the mobile space. It's simple business.
C2Ds are dirt cheap to make and support for them is wide. Biggest market is Asia and price matters there

Much like you are assuming that Apple will stick with C2D. Apple can't stick with Core 2 Duo for much longer.
Why? Core iX isn't that much faster anyway

Why would that be unlikely? The 17" has had the same resolution for a while now. It was even the same resolution as the aluminum 24" iMac.
Because it would be extremely hard to read! It's way too accurate and that res is pretty rare too, so much less support than in 1920x1080. The reason why Apple didn't move to 16:9 might be the downgrade in resolution

There are 7 more inches in 24", that's 30% more. Even the current res is too accurate for some people as everything is so small
 

MartiNZ

macrumors 65816
Apr 10, 2008
1,196
98
Auckland, New Zealand
I'm almost certain the next update will be a major one because if Apple has to redesign the entire logic board on the 13" to fit an i processor with a decent GPU then they might as well redo the entire line. Make all of the screens 16:9 with IPS technology along with increasing the resolution.

Think of it like going from a 24" iMac to a 27" iMac, different but not radically different.

I'd personally wait until the next update.
Yeah I was a bit surprised they didn't go 16:9 along with the higher res on the 15" - 1600x900 anyone? That and no USB 3 have me thinking next rev is going to be the ticket - lightpeak? It is interesting as I thought this one should have been the more significant 'tock' upgrade. It all makes me even more interested to see what happens with the Air!

Alternatively as evidenced by the iPad, perhaps 4:3 is coming back :D.
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
C2Ds are dirt cheap to make and support for them is wide. Biggest market is Asia and price matters there
Again, why would Intel want to be selling the cheaper chips when they could be selling the more expensive ones without being a detriment to sales? They have ZERO competition right now in the mobile space.

Why? Core iX isn't that much faster anyway
Hyper-threading and turbo boost say hello.


Because it would be extremely hard to read! It's way too accurate and that res is pretty rare too, so much less support than in 1920x1080. The reason why Apple didn't move to 16:9 might be the downgrade in resolution

There are 7 more inches in 24", that's 30% more. Even the current res is too accurate for some people as everything is so small
Key word here is might. Apple loves gloating about pixel density whether you can read the screen or not. Hell there are 15" widescreen laptops right now with 1920x1080, I was actually just talking with my buddy who said he wanted the 15" MBP to have a 1920x1200 resolution.
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
ARGH we have already been over this! we are talking about the i3 for the low end MBP. which DOESNT have TB or HT!

read the topic plux. (sorry to sound rude).
I never once mentioned the i3. But if you really want to talk about it, it has hyper threading but it doesn't have turbo boost.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,512
33
Singapore
I never once mentioned the i3. But if you really want to talk about it, it has hyper threading but it doesn't have turbo boost.
true. mybad. it does have HT.

apple wouldnt do that tho, as i said before - its a low end entry machine.
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
true. mybad. it does have HT.

apple wouldnt do that tho, as i said before - its a low end entry machine.
Putting an i3 in it would not make it anything but what you're describing. The i3 is Intel's current generation low end chip.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,512
33
Singapore
Putting an i3 in it would not make it anything but what you're describing. The i3 is Intel's current generation low end chip.
........:confused:

that is exactly what i am saying.. the 13" MBP is apples entry machine - needs to be portable/cool/use hardly any power. the i3 chips help to do that.... (the C2D even more so).
 

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
........:confused:

that is exactly what i am saying.. the 13" MBP is apples entry machine - needs to be portable/cool/use hardly any power. the i3 chips help to do that.... (the C2D even more so).
So then what exactly are you trying to say here? The Core 2 Duo is on the verge of being obsolete. It won't be around for much longer. When Sandy Bridge is ready Apple will use it and replace every Core 2 Duo in their line.
 

Similar threads

  • scrub10rd
5
Replies
5
Views
608
  • dbrewood
22
Replies
22
Views
1K
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.