Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

genmac · Feb 4, 2006, 02:35 PM

What do you think of these patents for some kind of Apple tablet interface? One site said this would replace the 12" iBook and PowerBook.

hrmpf.com
Macsimum News
Ultraportable Laptops and Notebooks

I don't know that much about the differences between the Core Duo and Solo other than one less core, but if the Solo put out a lot less heat/required less battery power, would it make sense to use a Solo in a really thin Tablet?

I want a MacTablet(tm)

added:
Engadget
TUAW

slugslugslug · Feb 4, 2006, 03:05 PM

I want one too, but I don't really see it happening. The fact that Apple patents something doesn't guarantee that it'll come to pass (witness the patent for the computer that looked like an iMac G4, but with a turkey neck instead of the actual iMac's metal arm).

I just think that while people who want a touchscreen exist (e.g. you, me), they're not a big crowd. So it's probably not worthwhile for Apple to make it unless they can get it out at sufficiently low price point that people who don't want tablet functionality will just get one anyway.

I don't know, how do today's Tablet PCs compare in price to similarly-equipped non-Tablets (I remember a year or so back, Tablets were far pricier for less power)?

jamil5454 · Feb 4, 2006, 06:11 PM

I would love a Mac Tablet. It would have to act as a normal laptop 90% of the time, though. But for the 10% of the time I'd need it as a tablet (math notes, drawing, etc), it'd be totally worth it.

blackbird_1.0 · Feb 5, 2006, 12:20 PM

I agree.

jwoods · Feb 5, 2006, 01:18 PM

I don't know if I'd buy a core solo. I'd rather pay the extra money for the MBP if that becomes the case.

Simon · Feb 5, 2006, 01:51 PM

I think a Core Solo would be appropriate for the Mac mini and possibly a low-end $999 iBook, but certainly not for a 13" MBP (if it indeed happens) or a more expensive iBook. The G4 has kept speed gains moderate for years now. Apple's portables need a kick. The question is just how much Apple is willing to spend.

Berman · Feb 6, 2006, 01:56 AM

i think apple should offer ONE 13" notebook, not two. they couldn't fit the same guts from the 15" powerbook in the 12" powerbook in the past, i don't see why they'd be able to now unless they did something like nix the optical drive.

and anyway people, why do you find the ibook to be so slow? for basic usage -- surfing, word processing, email, itunes, watching dvd's, etc ... it's plenty fast

Simon · Feb 6, 2006, 03:57 AM

If the iBook replacement gets a Core Solo T1300 running at 1.67GHz with its 2MB L2 cache and a 667MHz FSB plus some kind of decent GPU, its UBs will run circles around any existing PowerBook. 'Slow' is definitely not the word you will here.

There are people (or at least one person

) here however, who think for cost reasons, Apple will use a Celeron instead. That will certainly not offer the T1300's performance. There is however no Yonah Celeron CPU available yet. And I personally don't believe Apple would ever use it.

I agree with you that they should only offer one 13" model. However, there are many people on this board who wouldn't like that scenario. On forums like this there are not few who want max power in a minimalist case. That of course goes against having only one 13" model - especially if the price tag has to start at $999.

By April we should know what Apple's gonna offer us.

Cory Bauer · Feb 7, 2006, 03:23 AM

I found a little nugget of information amidst the on-box Requirements for iLife '06. The first line reads: Macintosh computer with a PowerPC G4, PowerPC G5, or Intel Core Processor.

Note that they said Intel Core. Not Intel Core Duo, which is all they are currently using. Seems they left it wide open for the inclusion of Core Solo chips in the near future, which seems to rule out Celerons, no?

Me personally, I'm just anxious to have an Apple laptop for under $1,999 that can do better than 1024x768. I don't expect the iBooks to go Core Duo until the MacBook Pro's can get Merom. If you give the $999 iBook a Core Duo processor, 13" screen that does 1280x800, an iSight and Front Row, then what's going to justify the $1,000 premium the MacBook Pro carries over it? The rumor sites seem to agree now that the new iBooks are coming in March, and since that's about the time the MacBook Pro's will finally be readily available, they're not gonna cut prices or increase specs yet. A Core Duo and Core Solo may only be $32 difference for Apple, but it's a great pro/consumer product divide that they've never had access to before; hence the intentional hardware crippling of consumer Macs of past.

mduell · Feb 7, 2006, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

I found a little nugget of information amidst the on-box Requirements for iLife '06. The first line reads: Macintosh computer with a PowerPC G4, PowerPC G5, or Intel Core Processor.

Note that they said Intel Core. Not Intel Core Duo, which is all they are currently using. Seems they left it wide open for the inclusion of Core Solo chips in the near future, which seems to rule out Celerons, no?

El Reg claims:
Intel is preparing to launch a 2.33GHz Core Duo chip, the T2700, The Register has learned. The chip giant's product pipeline also includes faster Core Solo chips, speedier low-voltage Core Duos and the introduction of an ultra-low voltage Core Duo, the 1.06GHz U2500.

Intel's roadmap also calls for the introduction of Celeron M 4xx chips - single-core value parts derived from the 65nm Core Solo.

<snip>

The Core Solo will form the basis for the next generation of Celeron M chips, which are expected to retain the old-style branding. The Celeron M 410, 420 and 430 are all 65nm parts and clocked to 1.46GHz, 1.60GHz and 1.73GHz, respectively. There's also a Low-Voltage 65nm Celeron M, the 423, in the works. It's clocked at 1.06GHz. All four chips use a 533MHz FSB.

A Celeron M 390 - a 1.7GHz 'Dothan'-core part - is also on the cards for a Q1 appearance.

FirstTimeUser · Feb 11, 2006, 01:48 PM

Anyone have an idea of what a 13" Intel iBook would cost? Ballpark of course... I'm trying to figure out if I should wait for this or buy the 14". Obviously it's like comparing apples to oranges but I'm anxious to use iLife and all it includes. I priced out a 14" iBook w/ 1GB SDRAM and an 80GB hard drive (approx $1450). This obviously includes the SuperDrive which is a MUST for me. I'm thinking if they're postulating a $999 13" iBook, that would be with the combo drive, probably 512 SDRAM and a 60Gb hard drive or smaller. What are the (possible) benefits of waiting versus buying this one? THANKS!

slugslugslug · Feb 11, 2006, 02:56 PM

Waiting: most likely, you get a faster, higher-resolution, perhaps "Cooler" machine for the same amount of cash.

Buying: You have an iBook sooner.

Hey, you asked.

FirstTimeUser · Feb 11, 2006, 03:37 PM

Yeah, that's my line of thinking as well. Never been good at "waiting". As long as it's the same amount of cash, I think I can wait 4-6 weeks. Thanks for the help!

slugslugslug · Feb 11, 2006, 04:07 PM

I guess the other thing about waiting is that at the moment, you can only have a vague idea of how long you'll be waiting. That is, signs are pointing to a late-March/early-April announcement, but nobody really knows until the announcement is actually made. And then you may or may not be able to take Apple at its word about availability and ship time.

Whereas if you're in a reasonably large city, you can have an iBook today.

Still and all, if you have no specific projects that require iLife now, you may as well wait, since everyone seems to think the next round of consumer laptops will have higher resolution, and for most of the iLife apps, more pixels = better. Good luck holding out.

FirstTimeUser · Feb 11, 2006, 04:21 PM

Yeah, it's a real crapshoot to tell the truth... I don't have any pressing issues or reasons to get the iBook (except that I'm craving one) but I also don't want to have to wait until June or July to get one (I see that MacBookPros are now shipping in "3-4 weeks") or pay close to $2000 to get the setup I'm looking for.

I originally was looking at a 12" iBook because of its small size but there's no SuperDrive and no way to add one. I like the smallness of the 13" because I was looking for something I could bring on a plane and watch a movie while at the same time do all my web publishing, movie-making, slideshow-producing, blooging/podcasting, etc. when I'm at home. The widescreen doesn't hurt either on the new machine and I hear you on the possiblity of added resolution.

Like I said, it's a crapshoot and, while I know that there's something new out there on the horizon, when and how much are the two big unknowns.

I really want an iBook... Thanks again!

FirstTimeUser · Feb 11, 2006, 04:28 PM

Yeah, it's a real crapshoot to tell the truth... I don't have any pressing issues or reasons to get the iBook (except that I'm craving one) but I also don't want to have to wait until June or July to get one (I see that MacBookPros are now shipping in "3-4 weeks") or pay close to $2000 to get the setup I'm looking for.

I originally was looking at a 12" iBook because of its small size but there's no SuperDrive and no way to add one. I like the smallness of the 13" because I was looking for something I could bring on a plane and watch a movie while at the same time do all my web publishing, movie-making, slideshow-producing, blooging/podcasting, etc. when I'm at home. The widescreen doesn't hurt either on the new machine and I hear you on the possiblity of added resolution.

Like I said, it's a crapshoot and, while I know that there's something new out there on the horizon, when and how much are the two big unknowns.

I really want an iBook... Thanks again!

im_noahselby · Feb 11, 2006, 05:01 PM

I see one of two senerios playing out in late May / early April:

1) Apple will release new MacBooks priced from $999 / $1299 / $1499 - $1599. There is no need for a 13" MacBook Pro.

They include an iSight and the wireless remote (except for the base model).

2) Apple releases new MacBooks priced from $999 / $1299 and a 13" MacBook Pro priced at $1599.

Apple reserves the wireless remote and built in iSight for the new 13" MacBook Pro. While the new MacBooks rock, they lack these new features.

I honestly can't see Apple releasing a $999 Intel MacBook with a built-in iSight. At least not in the near future.

Noah

SpaceMonkey · Feb 11, 2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by im_noahselby

2) Apple releases new MacBooks priced from $999 / $1299 and a 13" MacBook Pro priced at $1599.

Apple reserves the wireless remote and built in iSight for the new 13" MacBook Pro. While the new MacBooks rock, they lack these new features.

I honestly can't see Apple releasing a $999 Intel MacBook with a built-in iSight. At least not in the near future.

Noah

I agree. I think your #2 option is the most likely one.

mduell · Feb 11, 2006, 07:44 PM

If Sony can put a camera in a $1200 VAIO, why wouldn't Apple put a camera in a $1000 MacBook?

One model to cover >75% of Apple's portable sales? No way. I'm thinking the 13" MB will sport Core Solo and the 13" MBP will have Core Duo.

galarneau · Feb 11, 2006, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by FirstTimeUser

I originally was looking at a 12" iBook because of its small size but there's no SuperDrive and no way to add one.

You can add a SuperDrive to the 12" iBook. It may void your warranty, and require being handy with a screwdriver, but NewEgg.com sells a slot load dual layer DVD-R for $90.

mgl · Feb 12, 2006, 09:59 AM

2) Apple releases new MacBooks priced from $999 / $1299 and a 13" MacBook Pro priced at $1599.

Apple reserves the wireless remote and built in iSight for the new 13" MacBook Pro. While the new MacBooks rock, they lack these new features.

I honestly can't see Apple releasing a $999 Intel MacBook with a built-in iSight. At least not in the near future.

I agree with this scenario, but I think a camera is cheap enough that it will be in all models. However, schools might not want it.

harrisjamieh · Feb 12, 2006, 10:23 AM

I was actually surprised that the MBP has an iSight. Its meant to be a pro machine, and hence could be used by business people. Camera's can be banned in some work environments, including government buildings, so I would have though it more logical to skip the iSight in the MBP and just put it into the MacBook. But thats apple for you..

Eug Wanker · Feb 12, 2006, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I was actually surprised that the MBP has an iSight. Its meant to be a pro machine, and hence could be used by business people. Camera's can be banned in some work environments, including government buildings, so I would have though it more logical to skip the iSight in the MBP and just put it into the MacBook. But thats apple for you..

True, but I'd guess that more people buying Macs for the first time would see the iSight as an advantage than a disadvantage.

f1000 · Feb 12, 2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I was actually surprised that the MBP has an iSight. Its meant to be a pro machine, and hence could be used by business people. Camera's can be banned in some work environments, including government buildings, so I would have though it more logical to skip the iSight in the MBP and just put it into the MacBook. But thats apple for you..

The built-in iSight is ideal for teleconferencing, but it's not ideal for taking surreptitious photos the way you can with a camera in a tiny cell phone. Imagine trying to whip out a MBP to take a quickie shot of a secret product.

harrisjamieh · Feb 12, 2006, 12:25 PM

lol you'd probs get mugged before you could snap the picture

mduell · Feb 12, 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

I was actually surprised that the MBP has an iSight. Its meant to be a pro machine, and hence could be used by business people. Camera's can be banned in some work environments, including government buildings, so I would have though it more logical to skip the iSight in the MBP and just put it into the MacBook. But thats apple for you..

I thought of this too... I'm surprised they don't have a biz/govt option to take the camera out.

Originally Posted by f1000

The built-in iSight is ideal for teleconferencing, but it's not ideal for taking surreptitious photos the way you can with a camera in a tiny cell phone. Imagine trying to whip out a MBP to take a quickie shot of a secret product.

As far as the government is concerned, a camera is a camera; it doesn't matter how easy it would be to take surrepitious photos.

harrisjamieh · Feb 14, 2006, 10:08 AM

The iBook now has 'room' for a Core Duo!! New MBPs (well new spec) have been released on Apples US website, which gets rid of the 1.67 Ghz model, and replaces it with a 1.83 Ghz model. The old 1.83 Ghz model is now a 2.0 Ghz model, with an optional $300 upgrade to a 2.16 Ghz Core Duo. This, IMO, now gives the iBook a chance to sport a Core Duo, as it would be distanced far enough apart from the the MBPs to not make people wonder if they should spend so much more money on a MBP. Anyone know if the Core Duo runs any slower than 1.67 Ghz, 'coz if it did, it would almost e a dead cert that the iBook would get a Core Duo.

Voch · Feb 14, 2006, 10:46 AM

And, just a slight "bump down" in each specification from the MPB then:

<speculation>
MacBook
13.3" widescreen 1280x720
Intel Core Duo 1.67Ghz
Radeon X1300 64MB
512MB 533Mhz DDR2 RAM, expandable to 1.5GB (one expansion slot)
built-in iSight camera
$1199
</speculation>

If the MacBook is so equipped what's to get people to buy the iMac at $1299? There's going to be a compromise of some kind. However, I would buy this machine in a second...

Voch

harrisjamieh · Feb 14, 2006, 11:06 AM

The iMac has a 17" or 20" display for a start. They have faster HD's 7200 RPM v 4200 (im guessing they will continue to leave the 5400 RPM drives to the MacBooks), keyboard and mouse (OK you can plug them into the laptop, but hey), and at the end of it all, some people will never ever ever ever ever ever ever (etc) take the laptop off of their desk, hence there would be no point in it. Also the iMac will have better graphics (ATI X1600 128 or 256 - non mobility), and the iMac is faster (1.83 or 2.0 ghz)

Do you not think there is a chance the macBook will get an ultra low power 1.5 Ghz Core Duo - spaces it further from the MBP, and *should* give 7+ hours of battery.

andreas_g4 · Feb 14, 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Anyone know if the Core Duo runs any slower than 1.67 Ghz, 'coz if it did, it would almost e a dead cert that the iBook would get a Core Duo.

No, the Core Solo is only available as T1300, which runs at 1.66 GHz. I still think the T1300 is a feasible option for Apple's upcomming consumer laptops, seeing that the Mac Book Pro is now at least at 1.83 GHz, and the Core Solo not being significantly cheaper that it's dual core brother.

Voch · Feb 14, 2006, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Do you not think there is a chance the macBook will get an ultra low power 1.5 Ghz Core Duo - spaces it further from the MBP, and *should* give 7+ hours of battery.

Nope. The L-series processors (low power) cost even more than the T-series they're using in the MBP. Not that I know what Apple is paying for their processors anyway...

Apple needs to strike a compromise on the forthcoming "MacBook" iBook replacement that makes you and I happy (read: Core Duo, reasonable graphics, nice screen) *BUT* still entices a certain percentage of buyers to spring for the extra cash for the MacBook Pro.

I have adjusted the "Wanted" line in my signature accordingly.

Voch

andreas_g4 · Feb 14, 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Do you not think there is a chance the macBook will get an ultra low power 1.5 Ghz Core Duo - spaces it further from the MBP, and *should* give 7+ hours of battery.

L2300 (2M L2 cache 1.50 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - 284,- $
T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - 241,- $

No.

edit: Linky. http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

harrisjamieh · Feb 14, 2006, 11:20 AM

Ah, darnit! hehe

Voch · Feb 14, 2006, 08:34 PM

AppleInsider has a new iBook discussion goin' on.

I forgot about the missing PowerBook 12" replacement (MacBook Pro 13"?)..that'll definately get a Core Duo. It's still a toss-up on the iBooks, though.

Voch

im_noahselby · Feb 15, 2006, 05:13 PM

1.66 Ghz Intel Core Duo

I think this pretty much seals the deal that we'll be seeing Intel Core Duo's in the iBook, err, MacBook line-up. For only $32 more, I think almost anybody would choose a dual over a single core chip.

Noah

blindemboss · Feb 15, 2006, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by im_noahselby

1.66 Ghz Intel Core Duo

I think this pretty much seals the deal that we'll be seeing Intel Core Duo's in the iBook, err, MacBook line-up. For only $32 more, I think almost anybody would choose a dual over a single core chip.

Noah

If I'm not mistaken, it's only $32 more to Apple....I'm sure their markup of a single core would net them a lot more. Apple will just have to decide whether or not going the single core route might make the very popular iBook into a dud.

andreas_g4 · Feb 16, 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by blindemboss

If I'm not mistaken, it's only $32 more to Apple....I'm sure their markup of a single core would net them a lot more. Apple will just have to decide whether or not going the single core route might make the very popular iBook into a dud.

No, 32 $ is the standard Intel list price difference between the T1300 and the T2300.

jamil5454 · Feb 22, 2006, 01:25 PM

I sold my PowerMac and am now waiting for the MacBook, which I think will have a Core Duo. Logic 7.2 and Logic Express both require a Core Duo, but make no mention to a Core Solo (links: http://www.apple.com/logicexpress/specs.html, http://www.apple.com/logicpro/specs.html). Seeing as Logic Express is widely considered a consumer app, that's significant. Especially now that Apple's Mac sales are on the decline, I think they're trying to get the Intel Macs out door ASAP, and make them as fast as they can. Hence the Valentine's Day MBP upgrade. Who announces a product, makes pre-production machines, then upgrades it before it even ships? A company that's had a quick change of plans.

Eug Wanker · Feb 22, 2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by jamil5454

I sold my PowerMac and am now waiting for the MacBook, which I think will have a Core Duo. Logic 7.2 and Logic Express both require a Core Duo, but make no mention to a Core Solo (links: http://www.apple.com/logicexpress/specs.html, http://www.apple.com/logicpro/specs.html). Seeing as Logic Express is widely considered a consumer app, that's significant. Especially now that Apple's Mac sales are on the decline, I think they're trying to get the Intel Macs out door ASAP, and make them as fast as they can. Hence the Valentine's Day MBP upgrade. Who announces a product, makes pre-production machines, then upgrades it before it even ships? A company that's had a quick change of plans.

You're reading too much into it. Apple doesn't list CPUs in the requirements if they haven't come out yet in Macs.

I too hope we will see Core Duo in a 13", but I'm not counting on it. However, I'm still convinced that an iBook/MacBook will NOT have a Core Duo. Any Core Duo 13" will be a MacBook Pro.

Perhaps we'll find out for sure on the 28th.

teney7 · 01:44 AM

I think there will be at least one model of the MacBook without a camera... if Apple throws an iSight in every portable, they may be alienating schools and individuals looking for Apple computing power without all the bells and whistles.

Also, I don't think any laptop that comes with a camera with sell for any less than 1200. Apple has to maintain that outrageous margin of profit on their hardware.

jamil5454 · Feb 22, 2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You're reading too much into it. Apple doesn't list CPUs in the requirements if they haven't come out yet in Macs.

Ahh thanks for the correction. Didn't know that. But the sudden upgrade in the MacBook Pros does raise some suspicion. It could just be that Apple wants its first Intel pro laptop to be as fast as they can make it, so that more customers support and understand the transition. However, this leaves little room for upgrading until Intel comes out with faster processors. I doubt this is the case.

mduell · Feb 22, 2006, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by teney7

Also, I don't think any laptop that comes with a camera with sell for any less that 1200.

Sony's $1190 VGN-FE590 has a built-in camera.

f1000 · Feb 22, 2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by f1000

I wouldn't mind seeing a 13" MBP ultraslim that took its design cues from the iPod nano. Instead of the polished chrome, though, I'd suggest a chrome dot finish (sorry, this is the closest representation I could find):

Check this rendering out, http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=286661

Eug Wanker · Feb 22, 2006, 10:29 PM

Note the Core Solo 1.83 and the Celeron M 1.73, 1.6, and 1.46 are all to come out in Q2. (Core Solo 1.66 is already out.)

Also, it seems Merom won't be out until Q4, but they won't be in iBook replacements for a very long time anyways.

teney7 · Feb 23, 2006, 01:43 AM

I meant any Apple laptop, thanks.

RadarBob2 · Feb 23, 2006, 03:01 PM

The theme in Apple products is elegance, simplicity. Thank god they dumped their dizzying array of models and actually made them not look like PCs. I think their fundamental marketing model of a 4 part square (pro, consumer / desktop, laptop) will be maintained. And I don't see the iBook getting anything that could be construed as being better than the pro-line.

I think apple will come out w/ new stuff when they can be clearly differentiated from the rest of the look-alike, clone PC stuff. But maybe a tablet PC, but not on iBook first. And maybe a PDA, but remember Newton? Good product perhaps too soon, in terms of handwriting recognition, form factor (size, that is), and cost.

With cell phones and PDAs trying to be all things to all people, I want to imagine that if Apple came out with such a device it would "fit" nicely into the iLife array of stuff and would not attempt to be a phone/gps/pda/email/internet surfing/music library/windoze CEish micro-micro-micro computer.

No "jack of all trades and master of none" stuff for Apple. Thus this conceptual Bat-Utility-Device would need n-dimentional surfaces that morph magically for the desired task. Well, hmmm... can't wait for the next MacWorld SF!

im_noahselby · Feb 23, 2006, 03:20 PM

I don't think a built-in webcam is necessarily a "pro" feature, in fact, I think it is more of a consumer feature. Does this mean Apple should include bulit-in iSights in their new MacBook line-up? No. Even if price weren't a factor, I think Apple would hold this feature over us for a couple revisions. Although, it would be a pleasant surprise to see one in a new MacBook, I think this is one of those features that Apple will keep in their MacBook Pro line-up for some time before they begin including it in their MacBooks.

Apple needs to offer their customers enough reasons to justify the added cost of a MacBook Pro. So it is unreasonable to expect Core Duo's, built-in iSights, 128MB graphic cards, 512MB ram, all in one package. Maybe we'll see a couple of these items, but certainly not every one of them.

Noah

Eug Wanker · Feb 25, 2006, 10:29 PM

AI: No iBook/MacBook on Tuesday

x user · 09:29 PM

The iBook should be targeted toward the non-professional market, therefore the single core should be the processor of choice. As with the the Towers, they should have dual core duos... IMHO. The Powerbook (sorry, MBP) should be introduced in 17 and 13" models with the core duo at a $1699 and $2399 price points. I would expect the iBook (Again sorry, MB) to be 1.67GHz Core Solo combo drive $999, and 1.83 Core solo with a superdrive $1299 both with 13" Screens.

That is my thought anywho...

Lets be resonable, for the normal market, a Core Solo is fine for most people (Including me) and Apple knows that. Most of you that are complaining about "Crippling" the iBook are the people Apple targets the MBP at. For you folks I would plan on purchasing a 13" MBP when they come out, I had to spend the extra bucks back when I bought my Rev. B Alu, so must you now if you want a Core Duo. I personally think a Core Solo will blow away my 1.0 Ghz G4 so I'll be happy with an iBook.

I would want a Black one if they come out with that

.

Edit: Hey look, it's my 1000th useless post...

im_noahselby · Feb 27, 2006, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by x user

The iBook should be targeted toward the non-professional market, therefore the single core should be the processor of choice.

Lets be resonable, for the normal market, a Core Solo is fine for most people (Including me) and Apple knows that.

I'd take a dual-core chip over a single core chip anyday.

For only $32 more they can advertise their new MacBooks as dual-core machines. I would not be surprised to see at least one dual-core configuration in their new line-up.

Noah