[thursdaythrice]

http://www.thinksecret.com claims that Apple has begun manufacturing the new "MacBook" (Intel iBook) which should be available in the next 30-60 days.

According to the rumor site, the newest version of the iBook will indeed be rebranded as a "MacBook" and will come with a 13.3" widescreen display with 1280x720 resolution.

The upcoming MacBook is said to share internal components with the recently released Mac mini which comes in both Core Solo and Core Duo configurations. The new MacBook will therefore replace both the current 12" and 14" iBooks as well as the 12" PowerBook G4. This corroborates a similar report that new iBooks were in production to be delivered by June. The iBook was last updated in July 2005.

Meanwhile, a 17" MacBook Pro with brighter display is also in the works and should arrive around the same time. The 17" MacBook Pro is said to be otherwise similar to the current 15" MacBook Pro.

Update: Meanwhile, AppleInsider claims that the upcoming MacBooks will contain a 1.67GHz Core Duo chip, and does not expect a Core Solo model. The new MacBooks are also said to contain an iSight, MagSafe Power Cord, Front Row and Photo Booth.


from macrumors.com

[jamil5454]

Yes, it is true.

[thursdaythrice]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

Yes, it is true.

They say 30-60 days which is like between may and june, but people say in june.

hmmm

[mduell]

Makes sense w/r/t the low-end model; the PowerBook never offered much more above the iBook except DVI and screen spanning, both of which I'd expect to see in the MacBook.

I'd expect about the following:

1.66Ghz Core Solo
2x256MB DDR2-667
13.3" 1280x800 screen (16:10, not 16:9)
GMA950 64MB
40GB 5400RPM SATA HDD
ComboDrive
Wifi, BT
$999

1.66Ghz Core Duo
2x256MB DDR2-667
13.3" 1280x800 screen (16:10, not 16:9)
GMA950 64MB
80GB 5400RPM SATA HDD
SuperDrive
Wifi, BT
$1249

The change in actual hardware costs is only about $120, but Apple will mark it up by $250

I'd like to also see

1.66Ghz Core Duo
1x1GB DDR2-667
13.3" 1280x800 screen (16:10, not 16:9)
X1300 128MB
80GB 5400RPM SATA HDD
SuperDrive
Wifi, BT
$1499

but I doubt it.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by mduell

I'd like to also see

1.66Ghz Core Duo
1x1GB DDR2-667
13.3" 1280x800 screen (16:10, not 16:9)
X1300 128MB
80GB 5400RPM SATA HDD
SuperDrive
Wifi, BT
$1499

but I doubt it.

Drool.

I would buy that in a heartbeat.

[grinder]

Me, too. If I had the money, that is. My brother and sister are waiting to buy the new MacBooks. So 30 days would be much better than 60. Especially since my sister needs one pretty soon for university.

[mikeini]

Is it also true that this is going to replace the 12" pb??

these will have the isight and everythign else built in correct?

[lilford]

It should because it would be like that macbook without the "Pro" at the end. Me: I would just keep my 14" ibook until its worn out, then get whatever is out by then, because I just got my ibook about a month ago, so I really don't want to give it up to something newer right away. For what I do on my ibook, basic email, IM, internet, itunes, iphoto I don't need anything with intel quite yet. Intel does speed up those apps somewhat but nothing that I would really notice beyond my G4 Power PC. I would wait until the Intel Quad Duo Comes to laptops, with a 3 pound battery to power it. Ha, That would be cool though, and with a 20" screen.

[Tomchu]

Please no GMA on the iBook. :'C

[lilford]

Gma??

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Krjat

Ok I can't have a funny sig because lateralus, the moderator, said so. Darn it. O well, this is my sig now, just a bunch of stuff. If you want to AIM me my sn is stinz499. I have 1300 songs in my itunes music colletion, Jeez, this sig is so boring!

Nobody said you can't have a funny sig. You just need to have a sig that fits within the guidelines like everybody else;

Signatures

Our current signature rules give you two options:

1. an image (200x50px max, 10KB max, non-animated) and up to one line of text, OR
2. no image, and up to four lines of text.

In either case, blank lines do count, and lines must be of reasonable length so they don't wrap on most screens (think 900px browser window width).

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Nobody said you can't have a funny sig. You just need to have a sig that fits within the guidelines like everybody else;

Or you can just come to AppleTalker, where people aren't picky about things like that.

On one hand, I understand if you had some humongous sig, but on the other hand a few pixels/lines here and there shouldn't be an issue, and aren't at AppleTalker. No personal thing against you though, Lateralus.

Speaking of being picky, why not just discuss this is one of the other speculative MacBook threads (like the 13" Intel iBook rumours redux thread)? And no, no one but Jobs and those close to him can really say if these are true or not.

[Lateralus]

The sig was more than 20 lines long. Beyond excessive.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

The sig was more than 20 lines long. Beyond excessive.

Still, Gabriel made a valid point. If you don't want somebody dictating the length of your sig (for whatever reason), you might want to check out http://www.appletalker.com/forum/

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Krjat

Gma??

GMA 950 - intel integrated graphics just like the mac mini has

[lilford]

OK I see, I went to that appletalker site and theres like 50 threads there total. Not trying to be mean or anything like that but would't you have more threads if you are reccomedning it so much? Or, did you just start it and you are trying to promote it on macnn by telling people about it? I suppose that is what you guys are doing then. I do like the style though, how its like notebook paper when you type and it looks a lot cooler than *cough*cough*mac*cough*nn*cough* but not as many posts to talk in so thats the downside I see to your website, but otherwise your website is awomse you just need more people, i'll go register and post a couple if you want me to.

[Simon]

Just to get back on topic, I think we can expect a sub-$1000 MB model to replace the 12" iBook. It will have a 13" widescreen, Core Solo and integrated graphics. The better model is more difficult. If has to go for $1299, I'd say it will have a Core Duo and integrated graphics. If $1699 is still possible, I'd expect no less than a Core Duo 1.83GHz, X1300/128MB, 4xSD. That would be more than just a 12" PB replacement. If $1499 is the max price, I'd expect no more than a 1.67GHz Core Duo and some cheap GPU, albeit not integrated, i.e. no GMA950. I'd expect an announce at the latest by May and units shipping no later than June.

[eeeaa]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

Yes, it is true.

Do you actually have inside information that comes directly from Apple, or are you assuming that this is true?

[lilford]

Its very hard to get inside info from that company, they hardly give any notice, maybe like a set month, then they introduce something else.

[eeeaa]

Originally Posted by Simon

Just to get back on topic, I think we can expect a sub-$1000 MB model to replace the 12" iBook.

I think the chances are really good that the replacement for the 12" iBook model is going to pass the $1000 mark, just as the Intel-based Mac mini passed the $500 mark set by the PowerPC Mac mini. "Intel" is the new buzzword, and they are going to charge a premium for it. It's a shame, really, because where in the PC world did you see a sub-$1000 notebook computer with the power of the iBook? We won't be able to say that anymore, although the new iBook (MacBook) will probably be screaming fast in comparison.

[eeeaa]

Originally Posted by Krjat

Its very hard to get inside info from that company, they hardly give any notice, maybe like a set month, then they introduce something else.

That was my point. If he doesn't work for Apple, or know someone who is willing to violate an NDA, he doesn't know for sure, and is guessing. No offense meant to him, but I think that, given all the most-recent rumors surrounding Apple, and the fact that MOST are usually completely false, saying "this is true" about something, without actually knowing, is a little brave.

Now, if he does have inside information, I'm wrong, and he's telling us something that he knows, in which case, great!

[lilford]

Isn't apple trying to switch its whole line of computers from PowerPC to Intel? I find this kinda sad as PowerPC has been here a while. They should keep at least one computer line with PowerPC in it.

[Commodus]

Originally Posted by Krjat

Isn't apple trying to switch its whole line of computers from PowerPC to Intel? I find this kinda sad as PowerPC has been here a while. They should keep at least one computer line with PowerPC in it.

It's a transition - not a sudden conversion. Systems are being replaced as Apple finishes the designs for their Intel equivalents. Also, I suspect Apple will save certain models for late transitions, like the Power Mac (as there will be users who absolutely need Intel-native versions of Adobe and Microsoft apps before they can upgrade). The company might even keep a single PowerPC system around in a special store section for a few months just to ensure that people who absolutely need PPC hardware can get something until all the major apps are native.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

because where in the PC world did you see a sub-$1000 notebook computer with the power of the iBook? .

Is that a joke? The iBooks performance in its current form is pathetic. I can't think of one PC notebook that wouldn't knock the socks off of it when it comes to CPU crunching stuff. The iBook also suffers from old RAM, pathetic FSB speed, and a weak display. The only SLIGHTLY decent thing about the specs is that it does not have integrated graphics, but thats it.

Don't get me wrong, I have an iBook, and they aren't bad, its just when it comes to comparing them to x86 laptops, they are poor. Thats why my iBook is going up on ebay this weekend ready for the MacBook.

[lilford]

Well for most users that arn't power users, the ibook is just fine for them. Just kinda reccaping this whole thread, but why is it just going to be Called The MacBook, not MacBook Pro?

[im_noahselby]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

I think the chances are really good that the replacement for the 12" iBook model is going to pass the $1000 mark, just as the Intel-based Mac mini passed the $500 mark set by the PowerPC Mac mini. "Intel" is the new buzzword, and they are going to charge a premium for it. It's a shame, really, because where in the PC world did you see a sub-$1000 notebook computer with the power of the iBook? We won't be able to say that anymore, although the new iBook (MacBook) will probably be screaming fast in comparison.

Keep in mind that with the pending price drop, a $999 MacBook is very much a possibility. This is going to be a huge product for Apple, and they will want all the buzz they can get off of it. In order to stay competitive, I would expect a $999 base model of the MacBook, however, I would stay open minded to the possibility of it starting out at $1099. It won't cost any more then $1099.

price drop link:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/...10130400.shtml

Noah

[Gamoe]

[off-topic]

Yes, we're still pretty new, Krjat and we need more members, but it's a good community so far- people are friendly, informative and actually helpful. Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread, so we can continue this conversation on the AppleTalker instead.

[/off-topic]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

I think the chances are really good that the replacement for the 12" iBook model is going to pass the $1000 mark, just as the Intel-based Mac mini passed the $500 mark set by the PowerPC Mac mini.

This is what I suspect also, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Krjat

Isn't apple trying to switch its whole line of computers from PowerPC to Intel? I find this kinda sad as PowerPC has been here a while. They should keep at least one computer line with PowerPC in it.

Krjat, we had a virtual war here on MacNN when Apple announced the transition. It really is a shocking transition for any long-time Apple fan. I also happen to think it's sad, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple's making the transition and according to Apple all Macs will be transitioned to Intel CPUs this year.

[harrisjamieh]

I dont want to startup the whole Intel/PPC crap again, but seriously, people who think its 'sad' that Apple is changing chips are just plain daft. ITS A PIECE OF SILICON! GET OVER IT!! Besides, Intel brings so many new possibilites to Apple. Just look at the MBP - that sort of speed would never have been possible with the PPC, nor was a suitable chip in IBMs future roadmap, therefore, who knows, we could have been stuck with G4 laptops for years, and then you would all be complaining to a different tune that 'why are Apples laptops so bad'.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I dont want to startup the whole Intel/PPC crap again, but seriously, people who think its 'sad' that Apple is changing chips are just plain daft. ITS A PIECE OF SILICON! GET OVER IT!! Besides, Intel brings so many new possibilites to Apple. Just look at the MBP - that sort of speed would never have been possible with the PPC, nor was a suitable chip in IBMs future roadmap, therefore, who knows, we could have been stuck with G4 laptops for years, and then you would all be complaining to a different tune that 'why are Apples laptops so bad'.

Amen!

WE will reap the real advantage of the PPC/Intel transition. Overnight, the MacBook (new iBook) may very well jump 2X in real world performance... if not more.

The high end has always been "in the ballpark" with x86 computers... but the low end (US) haven't even been anywhere near where the x86 people have been.

[freudling]

iBook is good with what it has if you have lots of RAM. I am sure the new iBooks will be loaded. It is their best selling portable.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by freudling

iBook is good with what it has if you have lots of RAM. I am sure the new iBooks will be loaded. It is their best selling portable.

Even with the maximum amount of RAM, the iBook isn't anywhere near G5 speeds. Yet the MBP can outperform a dual 2 GHz G5 in some tasks.

[ghporter]

When we got my wife's G4 800MHz iBook in 2004, it was no doubt the best "bang for the buck" in ultralightweight laptops. It is still exceptionally useful and effective for her needs (which never included video editing or other high horsepower applications). With that said, the 800MHz G4 is still outdated (remember why Apple left their long relationship with IBM over the PPC's performance evolution) and G4-based iBooks are in need of a major upgrade. A Core Duo (or even a fast Core Solo)-based "MacBook" would be welcome.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I dont want to startup the whole Intel/PPC crap again,

Then don't.

There are good reasons why some of us don't fancy the Intel transition as much as others, but I will not go into them again because this thread is not about this, and there are plenty of older threads you can read for views different from your own.

So don't pretend not to want to start up the debate again while at the same time calling others who have different views from your own "daft".

Furthermore, the Mac is nothing but a machine with transistors, silicon and metal inside and plastic on the outside. That doesn't make it less important to me, though, because it is the design and philosophy and function behind it which makes it worthwhile to me. Now will we continue discussing the iBook/MacBook or will you continue to bring up this debate?

[Big Mac]

Who would entertain buying a Mactel iBook with GMA?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

I think the chances are really good that the replacement for the 12" iBook model is going to pass the $1000 mark, just as the Intel-based Mac mini passed the $500 mark set by the PowerPC Mac mini.

I think that's a very bad comparison.

The mini went from $499 to $599 because they added features. With the same feature set, the Mac mini G4 was already $599 before the Intel mini was announced. Secondly, the mini was a design based on already available and frankly, old parts. It's $499 entry price was possible because the only innovation that went into it, was miniaturization. The mini's switch to Intel meant suddenly going from an old and battered CPU to a new and current model. Suddenly it wasn't just old parts lying around, but a new chipset on a new board layout. That costs. The upcoming MB is exactly the other way around. It will be able to make use of a lot of MBP R&D just like the G4 mini did back in its day.

Apple has not hinted by any means that the $999 entry price point for Mac portables will soon be history. There's no reason to jump the gun on this one.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Who would entertain buying a Mactel iBook with GMA?

Me. As much as I would be dissapointed if it had a GMA, I don't play games, and I don't plan to much on my MacBook, just the usual Pages, Keynote, Safari etc. I have an iMac CD for anything slightly graphics intensive I want to do

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Who would entertain buying a Mactel iBook with GMA?

Me. As much as I would be dissapointed if it had a GMA, I don't play games, and I don't plan to much on my MacBook, just the usual Pages, Keynote, Safari etc....

I'm pretty much in jamie's boat. I'm very likely to buy the smallest Apple laptop available mid- to late- summer, and I don't much care at all about the graphics. I'll probably act disappointed for a day or 2 after the announcement if it uses GMA, but in real-world use, I'm sure I wont notice the difference one whit.

And I'm sure thousands of college students and their families will entertain buying one without having ever heard of GMA or whatever the current ATi/nVidia alternatives are.

[Voch]

Same here. I'd use it for Java development, web surfing, light Photoshop work, and MacMAME. GMA is fine with me.

Voch

[tooki]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Is that a joke? The iBooks performance in its current form is pathetic. I can't think of one PC notebook that wouldn't knock the socks off of it when it comes to CPU crunching stuff. The iBook also suffers from old RAM, pathetic FSB speed, and a weak display. The only SLIGHTLY decent thing about the specs is that it does not have integrated graphics, but thats it.

Don't get me wrong, I have an iBook, and they aren't bad, its just when it comes to comparing them to x86 laptops, they are poor. Thats why my iBook is going up on ebay this weekend ready for the MacBook.

In all fairness, those cheap PC laptops also weigh 50-80% more than an iBook and often come with AC adapters four times the size of Apple's.

tooki

[mgl]

I'll probably act disappointed for a day or 2 after the announcement if it uses GMA, but in real-world use, I'm sure I wont notice the difference one whit.

Me, too.

[mduell]

For a cheap (<$1499) ultraportable (<1" thick, <3.5 lb) I wouldn't mind GMA950.
But for anything pricier and bigger I won't buy without a discrete GPU, preferably nVidia.

[hookem2oo7]

i am hoping for a "pro" version of the baby intel notebook...i want to be able to play some games, but i dont want a huge 15" MBP...i'm too used to the ease of carrying my 12" ibook...

[ChadC]

Originally Posted by hookem2oo7

i am hoping for a "pro" version of the baby intel notebook...i want to be able to play some games, but i dont want a huge 15" MBP...i'm too used to the ease of carrying my 12" ibook...

soo true.. i went from 12" iBook to 15" PowerBook and have been waiting for a release of a 13.3" intel... maybe a custom built model with non integrated graphics will be released...

hopefully..

[rockritic]

I'm sure most of you reading this thread are aware of some of the 'concerns' first-gen macbook pro owners have experienced - overheating, noises/whirring, wifi issues, etc...

Any news/rumors on wether there was some active effort to fix these concerns with the macbook? It would seem logical that Apple would do this, but having confirmation would make me feel alot better about my upcoming investment...

[turnedge762]

Does anyone think it's even in the realm of possibility for a version of the new MacBooks to have a backlit keyboard? (and is it all it's cracked up to be?)

[im_noahselby]

Originally Posted by turnedge762

Does anyone think it's even in the realm of possibility for a version of the new MacBooks to have a backlit keyboard? (and is it all it's cracked up to be?)

Backlit keyboards on the MacBooks are highly unlikely. Apple never included them on their 12" PowerBooks during its entire lifespan, so I wouldn't expect the MacBooks to suddenly adopt this feature.

[volcano]

Originally Posted by im_noahselby

Backlit keyboards on the MacBooks are highly unlikely. Apple never included them on their 12" PowerBooks during its entire lifespan, so I wouldn't expect the MacBooks to suddenly adopt this feature.

Highly unlikely? Yes.
Impossible? No.

One can always hope.

If they are re-vamping the iBook/MacBook line - anything is possible. The 12" Powerbook was always (and still is, for now) the red-headed step-child of the entire Powerbook line. Perhaps that will change relatively soon.

[production_coordinator]

I would love to see Apple offer a sub-notebook. No optical drive needed... and offer a 10" or smaller screen at the same resolution.

[eeeaa]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Is that a joke? The iBooks performance in its current form is pathetic. I can't think of one PC notebook that wouldn't knock the socks off of it when it comes to CPU crunching stuff. The iBook also suffers from old RAM, pathetic FSB speed, and a weak display. The only SLIGHTLY decent thing about the specs is that it does not have integrated graphics, but thats it.

Don't get me wrong, I have an iBook, and they aren't bad, its just when it comes to comparing them to x86 laptops, they are poor. Thats why my iBook is going up on ebay this weekend ready for the MacBook.

When I got my iBook over a year ago, I remember it being fairly fast in comparison to other PC notebooks that friends had, but, frankly, the speed of OS X, along with the stability, could have affected my judgement. I'm not going to argue about the performance...you can win this debate, because I never really did any speed tests that compared the machine with Windows machines running the same software. It was just my observation. Either way, the price point was just right, especially for someone looking to switch who didn't want to spend a good deal of cash to test out a new OS.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I would love to see Apple offer a sub-notebook. No optical drive needed... and offer a 10" or smaller screen at the same resolution.

I've said that multiple times around here lately, and it seems a not-entirely-insignificant contingent shares the sentiment.

I have an idea! Let's start a petition! Then Apple'll have to make a subnotebook for us!


[I hate to have to do this, but since I can't seem to do sarcasm over the internet: I was just kidding about the petition part]