[mduell]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Just to be a bit thick, why would it need to be miniPCIe. As I understand it, PCIe differs from PCI only in the way that it is a lot faster. For wireless & bluetooth, surely this extra speed is not needed?

I'd guess for simplicity. Keep everything on PCIe, and you may be able to leave out PCI entirely (unless you're going to use it for Firewire). Intel's chipset diagram shows Pro/Wireless on a x1 PCIe lane.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Voch

I think both of these can be solved with some strategic feature cuts on Apple's part (less expensive LCD, less-expensive GPU or GMA 950, excluding the ExpressCard slot, etc., like the iBook G4-versus-PowerBook G4) and the supposed forthcoming Core Duo processor price cuts/speed bumps.

I really hope they don't resort to GMA 950. Or if they have to resort to integrated Intel graphics, perhaps in the very least they could use G965.

It seems that Intel's G965 will still be a lot slower than ATI's X300 though.

[DogDay]

who's up for breaking into asustek and stealing some of them already

[danengel]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I really hope they don't resort to GMA 950. Or if they have to resort to integrated Intel graphics, perhaps in the very least they could use G965.

It seems that Intel's G965 will still be a lot slower than ATI's X300 though.

For an iBook, the cheapest integrated will do. The people I know who bought iBooks don't even know what a GPU is. They surf, mail, and write, for which anything will do.

But my dream MacBook would have a hi-res 13" screen, decent GPU, and be less than 4 lbs...

[freudling]

Just because they don't know what a GPU is doesn't mean they don't need it. Quartz Extreme leverages good graphics cards and does make a difference in performance. Take out a person's GPU and performance drops.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by danengel

For an iBook, the cheapest integrated will do. The people I know who bought iBooks don't even know what a GPU is. They surf, mail, and write, for which anything will do.

But my dream MacBook would have a hi-res 13" screen, decent GPU, and be less than 4 lbs...

The new iBook G4 delivers gorgeous 3D images and stunning photorealistic effects — just what you need to enjoy the latest generation of Mac games.

That’s because Apple engineers equipped the new iBook G4 with a powerful, professional-level graphics processor. Using an ATI Radeon 9550 graphics processor with 32 megabytes of dedicated DDR SDRAM and AGP 4X, the iBook G4 delivers blistering 2D, 3D and multimedia graphics performance for today’s most demanding games and applications.

ATI Radeon 9550

The Radeon 9550 features an advanced architecture that delivers blazingly fast performance — over 800 million textured pixels per second. That means you get the most out of fast-action games on the iBook G4. What’s more, the Radeon 9550 renders incredibly realistic graphics, thanks to support from the latest advances in programmability. (Watch in awe how realistically it renders such elements as metals, liquids and wood.) So not only does it deliver a tremendous speed boost, it gives you spectacular 3D images and even more photorealistic effects.

With 32MB of onboard dedicated DDR RAM, the ATI Radeon 9550 with AGP 4X has plenty of memory to give your multimedia applications a boost for rendering 3D graphics on the fly. Large visual elements can refresh themselves swiftly after image manipulations such as filters, blurs and color corrections. And because main memory doesn’t get tied up with graphics processing, you get smoother system performance all around.

See for Yourself
You’ll see the iBook G4 advantages in action when you play games like Freeverse Software’s Airburst Extreme. First of all, iBook G4 gives you options for network gameplay. You can play tethered — taking advantage of built-in 10/100-BASE-T Ethernet to join your fellow combatants over a wired network. Or you can play wirelessly. Thanks to the iBook’s built-in AirPort Extreme capability, you can go head-to-head with your friends — and take advantage of such new features as Voice over IP technology (VoIP) — from just about anywhere in your house at up to 54-Mbps. What’s more, thanks to Mac OS X and the stellar performance offered by the iBook graphics processor, you’ll appreciate superb on-the-road game play and enjoy many new highly detailed environments served up in Airburst Extreme.

[blackbird_1.0]

Originally Posted by MSchen01

who's up for breaking into asustek and stealing some of them already

*Raises hand* j/k

[TheoCryst]

I'm a little unsure of some things... out of curiousity, how does the Radeon x300 compare to the 9550? How about 9550 versus GMA950? I have an iBook with a 9550, so I'm familiar with its performance.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by MSchen01

who's up for breaking into asustek and stealing some of them already

I remember someone taking about breaking into the Battlestar Galactica set this summer in this thread (I'm not going to make it to the October premiere ). Maybe we could get them to do it...

I'm so very sorry I mentioned the acronym "GPU" in my previous post. Let the bickering commence!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by freudling

Just because they don't know what a GPU is doesn't mean they don't need it. Quartz Extreme leverages good graphics cards and does make a difference in performance. Take out a person's GPU and performance drops.

Intel's integrated graphics fully support all of the features that Quartz Extreme and Tiger Core Graphics (such as Core Image) need, with more than sufficient Quartz Extreme performance on DVI screens.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

I'm a little unsure of some things... out of curiousity, how does the Radeon x300 compare to the 9550? How about 9550 versus GMA950? I have an iBook with a 9550, so I'm familiar with its performance.

Radeon 9550 >>> GMA 950

[danengel]

- If Apple made the iBook too lightweight, wouldn't that be too big a competition for the 15" MacBook?

- Does anyone know how well the 12" G4 PowerBook sold compared to the 15" G4 PowerBook? I just wonder if Apple is motivated enough to bring a < 15" MacBook/iBook.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by danengel

- If Apple made the iBook too lightweight, wouldn't that be too big a competition for the 15" MacBook?

How? They would be totally different machines

[danengel]

Not so much. Weight is among the most important characteristics of a notebook, among screen size and performance. Many would accept lower performance and a small screen if they could have small weight.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by danengel

Not so much. Weight is among the most important characteristics of a notebook, among screen size and performance. Many would accept lower performance and a small screen if they could have small weight.

Yes, but the MacBook Pro was designed for.. well... pro's. Someone doing professional work will want the best machine possible - which means max performance. Also, someone doing video, audio, design or any other pro work will almost certainly want a larger screen, not a smaller one. Personally, when I eventually become a world class film producer (if only....), I would want a) a powerful processor b) a big HD c) a big screen d) a good GPU e) lightweight. I don't see lightweight as being a main concern for a pro.

[danengel]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Yes, but the MacBook Pro was designed for.. well... pro's. Someone doing professional work will want the best machine possible - which means max performance. Also, someone doing video, audio, design or any other pro work will almost certainly want a larger screen, not a smaller one. Personally, when I eventually become a world class film producer (if only....), I would want a) a powerful processor b) a big HD c) a big screen d) a good GPU e) lightweight. I don't see lightweight as being a main concern for a pro.

If weight is so far back in your list of priorities, you might as well get a desktop Mac. I carried the original iBook (3.0 kg, 6.6 lbs) around a lot, and since then I know than one kilogram more or less does matter.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by danengel

If weight is so far back in your list of priorities, you might as well get a desktop Mac. I carried the original iBook (3.0 kg, 6.6 lbs) around a lot, and since then I know than one kilogram more or less does matter.

You missed my point totally. For a consumer, weight matters. For a pro, its nice to have a light laptop, but a pro would not choose a light, less featured laptop over a heavier, more fully featured (bigger HD, better graphics, SD, FW 800 etc) laptop, as these features are needed.

Besides, what an absurd comment to make: "Buy a desktop mac", if someone needs portability, a desktop is totally unportable, whereas a laptop, hypethetically weighing 10 KG is still much more portable.

[danengel]

I understand... seems like I'm not a pro Bring me the iBook Light!!!

[mgl]

Not all pros are graphic pros. I used my mac laptop for business for a few years but graphics was not my priority. I used powerpoint, excel, entourage, and concept draw. I couldn't have cared less about the GPU, I cared about CPU, RAM, and hard drive. And I wanted it light since I carried it everywhere.

Thinking that all pros want and need ultimate graphics is thinking about the needs of one market segment only.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by mgl

Not all pros are graphic pros. I used my mac laptop for business for a few years but graphics was not my priority. I used powerpoint, excel, entourage, and concept draw. I couldn't have cared less about the GPU, I cared about CPU, RAM, and hard drive. And I wanted it light since I carried it everywhere.

Thinking that all pros want and need ultimate graphics is thinking about the needs of one market segment only.

Yes, but from what you have said, you would be suited to a possible MacBook. Apple will only make one line of pro portables, and that line needs to cover people who do graphics / video / audio, as well as anyone else who wants to buy one. Im not suggesting that everyone needs these features, and if they don't, then they could easily go with Apple's consumer line.

[Voch]

My greatest concern is the choice of LCD that Apple will make for the iBook replacement. While the rumor mill says it'll be a 13.3" 1280x720 or 1280x800 I'm hoping that it's not going to be reserved for a $1599 aluminum-clad MacBook Pro while a plastic $1299 Core Duo MacBook gets stuck with the current iBook LCD. I want the nice LCD *and* a polycarbonate case.

Voch

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Voch

My greatest concern is the choice of LCD that Apple will make for the iBook replacement. While the rumor mill says it'll be a 13.3" 1280x720 or 1280x800 I'm hoping that it's not going to be reserved for a $1599 aluminum-clad MacBook Pro while a plastic $1299 Core Duo MacBook gets stuck with the current iBook LCD. I want the nice LCD *and* a polycarbonate case.

The 13" MacBook Pro Core Duo won't be 1280x720. Aperture requires 1280x780 minimum.

You can get 1280x800 screens as small as 12" anyway, and perhaps even smaller.

P.S. I like the iBook's polycarbonate shell too, but would be willing to give that up for a Core Duo. I highly doubt the low end iBook replacement will get a Core Duo. It will be Core Solo, to keep costs down, and I think we'd should be happy "just" to get the Core Solo in such a low cost machine. Celeron Yonah would also make a fine G4 replacement, and it's a heluvalot cheaper than Core Solo.

The good news about Core Solo is that it uses much less power than Core Duo, for obvious reasons.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The 13" MacBook Pro Core Duo won't be 1280x720. Aperture requires 1280x780 minimum.

Interesting. I didn't know Aperture had a minimum screen resolution but I guess that makes sense. The specs page says it's 1280x854...looks like it's DVI TiBook, 15" AlBook/MBP, or 17" AlBook/MBP unless you have you have an external display.

There are lots of WXGA resolutions...looks like it's a generic term for "middle-of-the-road LCD resolution." Hopefully Apple picks one of them for the MacBook LCD. I want something more portable than the MBP but don't want to give up too many pixels.

If my work subsidy comes through I'm grabbing a refurb 15" MBP ASAP, though. I'm just concerned about lap heat...

Voch

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I highly doubt the low end iBook replacement will get a Core Duo. It will be Core Solo, to keep costs down, and I think we'd should be happy "just" to get the Core Solo in such a low cost machine. Celeron Yonah would also make a fine G4 replacement, and it's a heluvalot cheaper than Core Solo.

Given the current 1Ku pricing:
1.6Ghz Celeron M $134
1.66Ghz Core Solo $209
1.66Ghz Core Duo $241

I don't see the Core Solo part as being a good trade-off... once you're spending the $70 to get Yonah instead of Dothan, you might as well spend the next $30 to get a second core.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

Given the current 1Ku pricing:
1.6Ghz Celeron M $134
1.66Ghz Core Solo $209
1.66Ghz Core Duo $241

I don't see the Core Solo part as being a good trade-off... once you're spending the $70 to get Yonah instead of Dothan, you might as well spend the next $30 to get a second core.

$30 x 250000 units is $7.5 million.

Now, we know Apple isn't paying the published prices, but nonetheless when you're shipping that many units, it's a lot of coin. Plus, if Apple went by the logic you are suggesting, then there would be no such thing as a Core Solo Mac mini.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

$30 x 250000 units is $7.5 million.

Now, we know Apple isn't paying the published prices, but nonetheless when you're shipping that many units, it's a lot of coin. Plus, if Apple went by the logic you are suggesting, then there would be no such thing as a Core Solo Mac mini.

*AND* it's not necessarily about cost to Apple, but what they can do to upsell you to the MBP.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

$30 x 250000 units is $7.5 million.

Now, we know Apple isn't paying the published prices, but nonetheless when you're shipping that many units, it's a lot of coin. Plus, if Apple went by the logic you are suggesting, then there would be no such thing as a Core Solo Mac mini.

And 250k units at $999 a pop is a quarter billion dollars.. what's your point in comparing gross figures?
$30 is 3% of $999; when the CPU is already 21% of the price, what's another 3%?

Based on iSuppli's figures, Apple is paying about 13% under 1Ku prices, so the comparison using 1Ku prices is reasonably close.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

$30 is 3% of $999; when the CPU is already 21% of the price, what's another 3%?

Please tell me you're joking.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Please tell me you're joking.

Please tell me you're joking. For a 15% increase in price and a 15% increase in TDP (contradicting your earlier statement about "much less power"), you nearly double the performance.

As far as the effect on profits or consumers willing to pay for it, I think consumers would be willing to pay $100 more ($1099/$999) for a dual over a single.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

Please tell me you're joking. For a 15% increase in price and a 15% increase in TDP (contradicting your earlier statement about "much less power"), you nearly double the performance.

As far as the effect on profits or consumers willing to pay for it, I think consumers would be willing to pay $100 more ($1099/$999) for a dual over a single.

Apple isn't an end-user consumer. Apple is in it to make money of end-user consumers. There is quite a large amount of people in the sub-$1000 market and Apple has already demonstrated with their iBook and Mac mini that they want part of it. Plus, as Voch said, a Core Solo Mac laptop is a nice unit to push the upsell too.

If your logic held water, we wouldn't already have Mac minis with Core Solos, nor would we have Macs with GMA 950, or for that matter Macs in 2005 with Radeon 9200.

You can count on at least one Mac laptop in Apple's lineup with a single-core Intel CPU. If it's Core Solo, we can count ourselves lucky... that it isn't Celeron Yonah.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by mduell

As far as the effect on profits or consumers willing to pay for it, I think consumers would be willing to pay $100 more ($1099/$999) for a dual over a single.

I don't know. I think it's seen as important to have an offering that comes in under a grand. So if those were both options, then very likely lots of people would forego the Core Solo for the Duo.

But it seems you're saying they should make the low end an $1099 Core Duo model. I think people who just want to get a portable Apple as affordably as possible want the thousand-dollar option more than they want every MacBook to have a Core Duo.

Of course, the price of entry models in all of Apple's consumer lines have fluctuated in $100 increments, so I'm not saying they're certain to have a $999 MacBook, just that it'd make a lot of sense. And why not save the ~$30 if it's not gonna prevent people from buying the things?

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You can count on at least one Mac laptop in Apple's lineup with a single-core Intel CPU. If it's Core Solo, we can count ourselves lucky... that it isn't Celeron Yonah.

I very much doubt we will see Celeron Yonah in any Apple product. The Mini is Apple's lowest end product, and we didn't get celeron in that, so I see no reason why they would put celeron into an iBook. The very lowest MacBook we will see will be a Core Sole 1.5 Ghz w/GMA950, as I really really can't see Apple making the MacBook any lower in performance than the mini, which costs a considerable amount less than the MacBook will

[andreas_g4]

I think I never was so hot on an Apple product to be released like this one. I'm on the verge of becomming insane…

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

If your logic held water, we wouldn't already have Mac minis with Core Solos, nor would we have Macs with GMA 950, or for that matter Macs in 2005 with Radeon 9200.

In my opinion, the reason the lowest mini is Core Solo is that Intel's pricing goes up rapidly with clockrate improvements, while extra cores are cheap. The lack of a 1.5Ghz Core Duo part means they would have to take the price jump up to 1.66Ghz before you can get a dual (ignoring the even more expensive LV chips).
That the higher end mini uses Core Duo, instead of a 1.66Ghz Core Solo supports my theory; a 1.5 solo/1.66 solo offering would be consistent with the old 1.25/1.42 or 1.33/1.50 spread, but instead Apple is willing to spend an extra $30 on an $800 system.

Apple doesn't feel the need for high-performance graphics in the Mac mini (evidenced by the 9200) and they have a tight heat budget, so getting away with a feature-complete (for Tiger Core Graphics) GPU for $4 (assuming 1Ku prices) is very attractive.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

I think I never was so hot on an Apple product to be released like this one. I'm on the verge of becomming insane…

Its because it basically is Apple's biggest market - the consumer laptop, and because the iBook is so outdated, everyone wants a macbook!

[blackbird_1.0]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

I think I never was so hot on an Apple product to be released like this one. I'm on the verge of becomming insane…

Join the club.

[harrisjamieh]

I've just sold my iBook, now im laptop-less! I want a new one dammit!

[danengel]

How often do you check Apple's website and the rumor sites? For me it's apple.com = 5 times a day, rumor sites = no more, since they're soo inaccurate.

[harrisjamieh]

Theyr not that inaccurate - they got the 17" MBP release right.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I very much doubt we will see Celeron Yonah in any Apple product. The Mini is Apple's lowest end product, and we didn't get celeron in that, so I see no reason why they would put celeron into an iBook. The very lowest MacBook we will see will be a Core Sole 1.5 Ghz w/GMA950, as I really really can't see Apple making the MacBook any lower in performance than the mini, which costs a considerable amount less than the MacBook will

I agree. No Celeron Yonah. However, the Mac mini gives us precedence for Core Solo. And remember, the Mac mini is a desktop, with no screen. The iBook is a laptop. Of course it's going to cost more.

Originally Posted by mduell

In my opinion, the reason the lowest mini is Core Solo is that Intel's pricing goes up rapidly with clockrate improvements, while extra cores are cheap. The lack of a 1.5Ghz Core Duo part means they would have to take the price jump up to 1.66Ghz before you can get a dual (ignoring the even more expensive LV chips).
That the higher end mini uses Core Duo, instead of a 1.66Ghz Core Solo supports my theory; a 1.5 solo/1.66 solo offering would be consistent with the old 1.25/1.42 or 1.33/1.50 spread, but instead Apple is willing to spend an extra $30 on an $800 system.

Apple doesn't feel the need for high-performance graphics in the Mac mini (evidenced by the 9200) and they have a tight heat budget, so getting away with a feature-complete (for Tiger Core Graphics) GPU for $4 (assuming 1Ku prices) is very attractive.

I thought you said $30 doesn't matter?

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

. The iBook is a laptop. Of course it's going to cost more.

Yes I know that, but what I mean is, imagine the iBook didn't have a screen, the Mac Mini was still a lower end machine than the iBook, due to its lesser video card, and slightly slower processor.

[im_noahselby]

I fully expect the new MacBooks to start out at 1.6 Ghz Core Duo. Apple could have very easily slipped a Core Solo into both MacMini models, but they didn't.

Noah

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by im_noahselby

I fully expect the new MacBooks to start out at 1.6 Ghz Core Duo. Apple could have very easily slipped a Core Solo into the lowend MacMini, but they didn't.

Noah

Do you even know the Mac Mini specs? The low end has a 1.5 Ghz Core Solo (and the higher end has a 1.66 Ghz CD)

[mgl]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Yes, but from what you have said, you would be suited to a possible MacBook. Apple will only make one line of pro portables, and that line needs to cover people who do graphics / video / audio, as well as anyone else who wants to buy one. Im not suggesting that everyone needs these features, and if they don't, then they could easily go with Apple's consumer line.

But I want a lighter laptop for business purposes. I'd like to be able to use it with the lid closed.

Business users shouldn't be forced to buy consumer class machines even if the consumer machines have decent specs. If a small iBook is good enough for professionals who want a small notebook, then put the 15 and 17" powerbooks in white plastic shells, add a bit more weight, make them a bit thicker, etc. Obviously this would be stupid, but so is not having a pro but small notebook.

I agree that it is unlikely Apple will introduce a 13" MBP at the same time as a 13" MB. I can only hope that they introduce one eventually. Unfortunately, this means I'll have to be a MB first and later upgrade to a MBP. Oh wait, that's Apple's plan.

[im_noahselby]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Do you even know the Mac Mini specs? The low end has a 1.5 Ghz Core Solo (and the higher end has a 1.66 Ghz CD)

Yeah, I know the specs. I just typed that last comment really quickly. If anyone is interested, earlier in this thread I posted some of my thoughts about Apple shipping Core Duo Mac minis. Sorry for the confusion.

Noah

[Eug Wanker]

Just like Apple debuted 802.11b in the iBooks, perhaps they will debut 802.11n in the MacBooks?

OK, so that's just wishful thinking, but hey.

BTW, today is a Tuesday, and the last iteration of the iBook is exactly 40 weeks old now. The new MacBook hatchling is due...

[Olorin]

Honestly apple should split their new iBook/Macbook line into three main models. The low end education model with a 1.5Ghz core solo, integrated graphics, and small HD. The middle range business model with 1.66 core duo, better integrated graphics, and bigger HD. And the high end 12" powerbook replacement with 1.83Ghz core duo, X1400 or something, faster HD, and more RAM. The prices should be 999, 1299, and 1599 respectively. Okay, so obviously I don't know what the exact prices should be; however, apple should definitely have a 999 model and a 12" powerbook replacement.

All models should have the same 13" screen, enclosure, and basic features to keep costs down. The education model should have an option to select out of the built in camera to save 50-100 bucks for various reasons not only including the price reduction.

[silentauthority]

Honestly I'd rather have this:

ONE MODEL

$1199

Core duo 1.6
13 inch screen
60 gb harddrive
512mb RAM
Integrated graphics > gma950
a/e and bt
lighter, thinner, new case redesign, but still in white

[danengel]

With Apple's new campaign www.apple.com/getamac/, I guess we'll have to wait for at least another week.

[mgl]

Originally Posted by silentauthority

Honestly I'd rather have this:

ONE MODEL

You want one model because that price point and configuration works for you. That configuration is too basic for me and I'm more interested in a higher price point. You configuration may also be too expensive for some and they'd prefer a $999 price point. One model isn't going to cut it. I'd like to see 3 models, but we'll probably get 2.