Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Unreleased MacBook Pro 6,1 and 6,2 Referenced in Mac OS X 10.6.2

2992 said:
just wondering... whom actually needs i5/i7 on a "notebook"?!
Who needs really powerful machines, well, get a desktop or something similar!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

they call them macbook PROs for a reason. They're supposed to be able to run pro applications while mobile. Why wouldn't some people need i5/i7?



Also, who besides me expects to see some 16:9 macbooks in the near future?
 
so the MacBook Pro went unibody in November 2008
another update in January 2009
another in June 2009
and here we go again

I don't ever feel like updating from my previous gen plastic MacBook

aren't Apple computers supposed to change once a year?
 
No USB3 from intel in 2010.

some12b said:
Do you guys think USB 3 is going to accompany whatever update there is in the Jan 2010 window?
Click to expand...

That is the rumor anyways, intel won't have USB3 built into it's chipsets until 2011. So if Apple wants USB3 they will have buy a supporting PCI based chip. Apple will go with Light Peak before that happens.

Dave
 
MorphingDragon said:
Lets see, (45nm tech only)

AMD:
Shanghai - Desktop/Server (With different steppings)
Caspian - Mobile
Geode -Embedded

Intel:
Beckon - Server
Gainestown - Server
Lynnfield - Desktop/Server/Mobile(?)
Bloomfield - Desktop/Server/Mobile(?)
Clarksfield - Desktop

@_@ Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...
I suggest that you give Wikipedia another look. Don't feel too bad.
 
I'm thinking the MacBook Pro 6,1 and 6,2 are Core Duo 2 and Quad Core. Meaning the MacBook Pro top of the line to get Quad Core. I don't know if Apple will follow suit and put two pairs of memory card slots though. Also keep in mind Samsung did make a DDR3 8GB SODIMM already it may be possible to put 32GB in a iMac and if two slots on the MacBook Pro it may be possible to put 16GB in it as well. Just a Theory since these are using Snow Leopard I don't know what EFI limitation Apple imposed if any. :confused:
 
2992 said:
just wondering... whom actually needs i5/i7 on a "notebook"?!
Who needs really powerful machines, well, get a desktop or something similar!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with anything on the mbp. I have been suffering with a 13" unibody 2.4 and a pc desktop for documentary work for too long. In my line of work, a lot of traveling for documents and pictures requires a powerhouse than can go with me and edit on the fly. So far the 9400m has been able to do that, just slower than I would like.

Still I will not be upgrading to mbp til the quad core is released, which I still do not see happening til q1 10, that way they have 6 months to sell to pros and allow students in on the deal in July when they wanna get the free ipod's with a new lappy purchase.

(hopefully wrong on that, but thinking pessimistically usually works for getting an update)
 
tempusfugit said:
they call them macbook PROs for a reason. They're supposed to be able to run pro applications while mobile. Why wouldn't some people need i5/i7?



Also, who besides me expects to see some 16:9 macbooks in the near future?
Click to expand...

16:9 would be nice, but I think they want to maximize the screens on the :10 still. Most ppl that really care for better screens tend to have enormous external monitors and run the lappy's closed-lid to max out performance.
 
The whitebook was updated in may then the mbps were updated in june

They just updated the whitebooks again this month so maybe the mbps will be updated in November


I am hoping for a lighter 13" with a dedicated GPU
 
Eidorian said:
Isn't this the Apple we wanted under Intel with more updates?
Click to expand...


Yup. Just wondering why it's taken Apple so long to figure out the concept of semi-anual updates along the lines of other PC makers.

As far as reference to 6,1 and 6,2 that doesn't mean new Macbook(Pro)'s are coming out real quick. Just means there are new laptops coming out before the end of the year most likely.

Or 10.6.3 won't be out for 4-6 more months.
 
puffnstuff said:
The whitebook was updated in may then the mbps were updated in june

They just updated the whitebooks again this month so maybe the mbps will be updated in November


I am hoping for a lighter 13" with a dedicated GPU
Click to expand...

it'd have to be a pretty weak dedicated gpu wouldnt it? most the 13" line seems to be bought by students and the like who want for minimal things. Heat would be an issue with any dedicated gpu in there given how how the 9400m runs already at max loads
 
kockgunner said:
It does seem like they just released the unibodies, and already they have taken away the battery cover and added an SD slot. I guess they have to be more competitive now since Microsoft is finally becoming semi-competent. Apple can't sit on their asses anymore.
Click to expand...

Where's this Microsoft laptop that's so competent ? :rolleyes:
 
Peace said:
Yup. Just wondering why it's taken Apple so long to figure out the concept of semi-anual updates along the lines of other PC makers.
Click to expand...
It doesn't bother me either.

Peace said:
As far as reference to 6,1 and 6,2 that doesn't mean new Macbook(Pro)'s are coming out real quick. Just means there are new laptops coming out before the end of the year most likely.

Or 10.6.3 won't be out for 4-6 more months.
Click to expand...
Oh I remember when 10.5.0 retail shipped with GMA X3100 drivers and everyone had just gotten done buying their Macbooks with the GMA 950 and Leopard drop in discs.

MorphingDragon said:
TBH, I don't really care. But it would be a nice "heres a list" for the CPU arguments. If wasn't in the quantum state of can not be arsed I'd dig through and do it.
Click to expand...
I could be convinced to write up a MacRumors Guide on it.
 
It seemed kind of weird to me that the new Macbook is more capable in some respects than the base Macbook Pro. It may be that Apple just wants to ensure that the lineup is situated properly according to performance.
 
CQd44 said:
i feel like they only JUST updated their macbook and macbook pro lines.
Click to expand...
They did, in June.

I always say to people that buying the Spring revision of Apple laptops is a bad idea, because in a few months there will be another. History backs me up here.

MacBook Revisions:

May 2007, November 2007. May and November aren't THAT far apart, as opposed from November to May.

May 2009, October 2009. Same as above

May 2006, November 2006.

There are more examples of this.
 
Why not!

2992 said:
just wondering... whom actually needs i5/i7 on a "notebook"?!
Who needs really powerful machines, well, get a desktop or something similar!
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you want a powerful machine, don't you think you are worth it?

More so Snow Leopard deserves it. The whole point of SL is using as many threads as possible and the new Intel processors rock in this respect.

In any event there where rumors a while back that Intel would have 32nm chips ready to ship before 2010. This may be wishful thinking but maybe Apple will get first crack at them. I just think Lynnfield is a little to much power for most of the MBP, they run hot enough as it is.

In any event it has been 6 months so the machines are due for updates. If they don't do the update real soon now they will have to wait until the alternative 32nm ship date of next year. If they don't wait for the 32nm chips then we end up with hot bridge machines. As you can see I'm hoping for a lot here but kool is cool. The thought of a cool running but high performance MBP is sooooo hot.

Dave
 
Why 16:9?????

puma1552 said:
If it's a new model identifier (6 instead of 5), then it must be a chassis redesign...looks like it will probably be similar to the current offerings in terms of ports and such, but probably carrying a 16:9 aspect ratio, enough for a new chassis and thus new designator to be used...
Click to expand...

16:9 screen aspect ratio may be nice for TV & movie watching, but it leaves off a lot of screen for those that need to have a lot of vertical data display. The older 4:3 ratio or a rotating screen is best for those that need vertical space more than horizontal space. In larger sizes a 16:10 ratio gives a usuable amount of vertical space. The 30" with a 2560 X 1600 resolution is the size I like to start with.

The iMac with its 16:9 screen resolution is a start in the wrong direction for good computing. It is the continuing sign that Apple wants to be an entertainment company. If Apple pushes the 16:9 aspect ratio to the Intel MacBook Pro then they will give more old time Mac people the needed push to go to the growing Mac Clone market.

Things like the 16:9 TV/movie screen aspect ratio, the lack of a numeric keypad on a laptop & for sometime now no numeric keypad on any wireless Apple keyboard are a sign that Apple doesn't really want to satisfy the business Mac User.

Having never purchasing a Windows computer as I moved straight from my HeathKit H-89 to a Mac in 1984 I don't know where to start, but Apple is pushing. But I have to be able to run the Mac OS for 95+% of my computer work.

One possible reason that the iMac may be 16:9 is to keep it from taking all of the 30" screen sales. Just compare the price of a 27" iMac & a 30" Apple display.

I'm hoping that they don't go the 16:9 route.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back