[hldan]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

Personally, I'm not "pissed off", but I'm rather disappointed, because I think it's very reasonable to assume a Santa Rosa update for Apple's consumer notebook, considering all the much-cheaper PC notebooks which have gotten and are getting such an upgrade and the fact that the new chipset is supposedly cheaper than the old, slower one.

Surely, Apple needs to differentiate the consumer and Pro lines, but I think this differentiation (if indeed the MacBook is to stick to the old chipset for a few more months while the MBP receives the SR upgrade) is somewhat disingenuous, unnecessary and more artificial than most.

I wish the low-end model would have gotten a superdrive, at least. <sigh>

.....

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

Sure, I'm glad there was an update, but this one is relatively poor when compared to many PC notebooks within the same price range. In the PPC era, one could say it is like comparing apples to oranges, but nowadays Apple is using the same hardware platform (with little difference), so yeah, I think it's right that we expect more, and Apple has not the same old excuses, nor can it blame IBM or Motorola anymore.

Apple can't have it both ways claiming it's consumer portable a superior premium product (compared to consumer PC notebooks) while skimping on the latest update which is supposedly actually cheaper to implement than the old. Apple should be putting more value into it's professional notebook line rather than weakening its consumer line by not adding a less costly, more competitive chipset that too many competitors have added to their consumer notebook lines.

Oh, and the superdrive issue is silly. It's there simply to coerce most users to buy the middle model, while allowing Apple to state "Starting from $1099". Either drop the lowest model or give us a superdrive with it, Apple!

But no use arguing about it now. It's either buy now, or wait potentially six months or so 'till the next update. Hopefully it will be sooner than that, though. Personally, I'd like to get myself a MacBook, but I can't afford it just yet, so hopefully by the time I can it'll be based on Santa Rosa.

This is one area where I will have to correct you. Check out this link to Sony's Vaio 13.3". No built in camera, no bluetooth, processor is a laughable 1.66Ghz 2MB L2 Cache and although it ships with 2GB ram it's only PC4200 all for $1449.00 U.S.
Sony is the "Apple" of the PC world and their Macbook competitor is a joke so back up what you say before you complain.
The Macbooks speed is incredible for all you get.
SonyStyle.com | VAIO® Notebook C Series

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by cherry su 

The previous MacBook had a 802.11n card but was advertised as a 802.11g card.

Doh.
I forgot about that.
That makes some of the closeout/last generation Macbooks a little more appealing.
Thanks.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Yes, you probably could but that would be a ridiculous assumption on Apple's part. I would fully expect an external DVD writer to come in the box. For the $2500 or so Apple would charge for this hypothetical MBM, it had better.

I agree, in another thread I brought up a external FireWire slot loading Super drive could be added as a option on the customize page at the Apple Store.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You ignore that Apple's upgrade price from the 80GB to the 120GB hard drive was completely absurd at $150 even when it was first introduced.

IMHO that's not really the point, is it? You can not bargain with Apple about the price of their HDD upgrades. They set the prices and all you can do is say I'll take the upgrade, or I won't. And with that in mind, it's a fact that they are now charging $125 just for the color black.

$60 or so would have been appropriate, making the "Black Premium" about $90 - not that much less than today.

For the sake of your argument, let's imagine it would have been $90 before. So we're now talking about a 40% increase for absolutely nothing. Of course Apple can charge whatever they want for black, but this price hike is certainly not going to help people feel better about what is already a weak update.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Apple makes a whole widget, so I don't believe the rumor that there will soon be a Mac ultra-portable with no optical drive.

You see an optical drive as a necessity for it to be the "whole widget", but I, and many other people, rarely use the optical drive, which just adds bulk most of the time, and people still get a lot of work done. I don't see it as that big of a deal. If Apple will, I don't know, but that's not unrealistic.

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Is flash memory even fast enough to make that practical?

Flash memory is definitely fast enough. It's faster than a magnetic hard drive. It's the overwrite limit that is of more concern, but high-quality flash chips seemed to have this pegged now.

BTW, I still don't belive Apple will release a flash-based MacBook, unless it is meant to be more of a PDA than a full-fledged Mac. But, it's very plausible that Apple might incorporate flash technology to buffer data and speed up transfer rates and keep the hard drive spun down as much as possible.

Originally Posted by hldan 

This is one area where I will have to correct you. Check out this link to Sony's Vaio 13.3". No built in camera, no bluetooth, processor is a laughable 1.66Ghz 2MB L2 Cache and although it ships with 2GB ram it's only PC4200 all for $1449.00 U.S.
Sony is the "Apple" of the PC world and their Macbook competitor is a joke so back up what you say before you complain.
The Macbooks speed is incredible for all you get.
SonyStyle.com | VAIO® Notebook C Series

The Sony computers are ridiculously overpriced. Apple can price its machines higher because of the unique Mac OS software. I didn't say every manufacturer had one up on Apple, but a lot do. I wouldn't compare Apple to Sony, as I would never consider buying an overprices Sony PC over a generic one, but I definitely do consider Macs over other PCs.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to "complain" anyway, simply because I expect more from Apple.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You need to remember the target audience of the MacBook. It's not made for peope who care that much about graphics. That's what the MacBook Pro is for... professionals who need the graphics performance and faster processor and more RAM.

The MB is the only 13" portable Apple offers. Buyers that want a small portable however do not necessarily also want crappy graphics.

In addition, many consumers do need more than a GMA 950. 3D games, Aperture, things like that. Those are not pro apps, but apps many consumers want to be able to use even if it's just casually. Had Apple gone with SR on the MB, we'd at least have a GMA X3100 in there, but as it stands we have completely outdated integrated graphics in notebooks that cost considerably more than other consumer notebooks.

The MB is not what Apple considers 'pro', but it costs well above $1k. For that kind of money people should not have to put up with poor graphics. The fact that this is Apple's 'entry-level' notebook changes nothing about that.

[CharlesS]

The thing I don't get is, if Santa Rosa is supposed to be a differentiator between the MB and MBP lines, how exactly does that work? As far as I know, Apple's never advertised the chipset that any of their machines have used. And if they did, I think most consumers would look at the page and go "Santa what?"

[ajprice]

As the MBP will have a ATI or NVidia graphics card and not the new GMA system, they'll probably pick up on the Robson flash cache part of the Santa Rosa spec and give it some cool sounding name. I think Intel are calling Robson 'Turbo Memory' or 'Turbo Cache' or something, so it has to be better than that and sound Appleish.

MemoryExtreme ?
ProCache?

[shinykaro]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The thing I don't get is, if Santa Rosa is supposed to be a differentiator between the MB and MBP lines, how exactly does that work? As far as I know, Apple's never advertised the chipset that any of their machines have used. And if they did, I think most consumers would look at the page and go "Santa what?"

I agree. Don't forget part of the success of the MacBook stems from the formula that made the iPod so popular. It's sturdy, sexy, and ridiculously simple to use. There are folks who want a great product without having to worry about how it works.

My college computer was a Pentium 4 Compaq with 512 RAM and a 40GB hard drive. Back in 2001 these were respectable specs, but to be honest, even though I absolutely wanted the best I could afford, I didn't really know at the time what these features meant, or that a Pentium processor didn't guarantee I was getting a great computer. And I really didn't.

Even now as I'm looking to purchase a MacBook later this year, yeah, I would love for it to be on the bleeding edge, but I don't really need all the specs maxed out, or the best graphics - I'll still be getting a great notebook with a great OS for a price I consider reasonable.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

As the MBP will have a ATI or NVidia graphics card and not the new GMA system, they'll probably pick up on the Robson flash cache part of the Santa Rosa spec and give it some cool sounding name. I think Intel are calling Robson 'Turbo Memory' or 'Turbo Cache' or something, so it has to be better than that and sound Appleish.

I don't understand - what is the connection between the GPU and NAND cache? We all expect the next MBP to use a SR chipset and discrete graphics. But if Apple decides to use Robson or not is entirely different question.

Robson requires OS support. Apple would have to release a new Tiger build with Robson support for the new MBP - that's not completely out of the question. OTOH Leopard won't be out till October. By that time Intel will have faster Meroms and Apple could chose to wait for the next MBP update to introduce Robson. That would give them more time to roll Robson support into the OS.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The thing I don't get is, if Santa Rosa is supposed to be a differentiator between the MB and MBP lines, how exactly does that work? As far as I know, Apple's never advertised the chipset that any of their machines have used. And if they did, I think most consumers would look at the page and go "Santa what?"

Pros know. That might be a stupid way of putting it, but if you're prepared to spend the extra dollars for a MacBook Pro, you've probably done your research and know what you're getting. Apple knows this and they want to give the pros a reason to buy the pro machines. If all of the portables had the same specs, nobody would.

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I don't understand - what is the connection between the GPU and NAND cache?

The connection is that the GPU (the new GMA or a graphics card) and the NAND cache (Robson) are all part of the santa rosa spec as well as the 800MHz FSB. A santa rosa MacBook Pro wouldn't use the GMA, but would use the faster FSB and the NAND cache.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

As the MBP will have a ATI or NVidia graphics card and not the new GMA system, they'll probably pick up on the Robson flash cache part of the Santa Rosa spec and give it some cool sounding name. I think Intel are calling Robson 'Turbo Memory' or 'Turbo Cache' or something, so it has to be better than that and sound Appleish.

TurboCache/HyperMemory are ATi's/nVidia's names for their GPUs that use system memory. Intel is calling their flash memory implementation Turbo Memory.

I also wonder what name Apple will use for Intel Dynamic Acceleration Technology: when the load is primarily single-threaded, it will shut down one core and overclock the other, while staying within the thermal design power limit.

Originally Posted by ajprice 

The connection is that the GPU (the new GMA or a graphics card) and the NAND cache (Robson) are all part of the santa rosa spec as well as the 800MHz FSB. A santa rosa MacBook Pro wouldn't use the GMA, but would use the faster FSB and the NAND cache.

GMA X3100 is an option with the Crestline chipset. In the MBP they'll use 965PM, which doesn't have GMA. Robson (flash memory) is another option, available on both 965PM and 965GM. They're completely unrelated to each other.

[disposable]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

If they add a firewire port then you could put the MBM (I'm going to call it the MacBook Mini) into target disk mode and then use another Mac to boot off the install CD and then install, say, Leopard straight to the Flash memory of the MBM

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous.

[hldan]

The Sony computers are ridiculously overpriced. Apple can price its machines higher because of the unique Mac OS software. I didn't say every manufacturer had one up on Apple, but a lot do. I wouldn't compare Apple to Sony, as I would never consider buying an overprices Sony PC over a generic one, but I definitely do consider Macs over other PCs.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to "complain" anyway, simply because I expect more from Apple.[/QUOTE]


I understand what you are saying as far as expecting more from Apple as you and I just a "customer" to them and of course we want a lot of specs. How do you think Sony has stayed so successful with the Vaio? Dell and HP give a lot of the same specs for less than the 13.3 inch Vaio and yet people still pay a high premium and they are getting the same Windows platform and standard features.

Still at 2-2.16 Ghz, bluetooth, iSight cam, better battery and runs both platforms some stock analysts would argue that Apple should be charging more.

Don't expect the Santa Rosa chipset to be in all price levels of Windows PCs. Apple builds according to the industry but offers a bit more.

[ph0ust]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

are you sure about this? that's the only thing i've read so far that disappoints me about the update. i never expected them to roll SR into the macbooks this early, i think apple is keen to create a bigger performance distinction between MB and MBP, and have been for quite some time. SR will come later.

if SR really is cheaper, not including them in the upgrade is just insane.

i read it on engadget/electronista, but the source was from intel marketing. this is to be expected, given, as i understand it, the new wafers they are using, the manfucturing facility and a bunch of other stuff i was vaguely paying attention to.

i think a lot of people are just supporting apple here, as is typical. having a common chipset makes more sense in the long run (between the mb and mbp). the benefits are latest generation technology, better wireless, better graphics built in, better BATTERY consumption (last i checked this was a big one for the mb), and a number of other features.

product differentiation between the two is not just processor speed, it is separate gpu, ram, backlit keyboard, screen size (there is no 13" mbp), screen quality, drives, hdd, system slots, and a ton of other stuff.

at the end of the day, a mb is not that cheap nor is it competitive. don't tout the "don't forget the software side of things". people go into stores and hear that a product they are buying uses what is current or what is old... few buy what is old; just like most people don't walk onto a car dealership lot and ask for an old car (unless they know they will get a screaming deal for it).

staying up to date with intel components shouldn't be a luxury, because it sure isn't in the windows world. it's par for the course. whether mac supporters want to believe it or not, new apple customers are coming from that group (windows users)... not us current mac buyers. this type of update doesn't help. i am not saying they will lose a ton of money... but they won't get any from me and i was waiting to buy a new mb!

[hldan]

Originally Posted by ph0ust 

i read it on engadget/electronista, but the source was from intel marketing. this is to be expected, given, as i understand it, the new wafers they are using, the manfucturing facility and a bunch of other stuff i was vaguely paying attention to.

i think a lot of people are just supporting apple here, as is typical. having a common chipset makes more sense in the long run (between the mb and mbp). the benefits are latest generation technology, better wireless, better graphics built in, better BATTERY consumption (last i checked this was a big one for the mb), and a number of other features.

people go into stores and hear that a product they are buying uses what is current or what is old... few buy what is old; just like most people don't walk onto a car dealership lot and ask for an old car (unless they know they will get a screaming deal for it).

staying up to date with intel components shouldn't be a luxury, because it sure isn't in the windows world. it's par for the course. whether mac supporters want to believe it or not, new apple customers are coming from that group (windows users)... not us current mac buyers. this type of update doesn't help. i am not saying they will lose a ton of money... but they won't get any from me and i was waiting to buy a new mb!

I really hate misguided ignorance. Get real dude. Most consumers go into a store and buy whatever is on the shelf. The salesman will tell them, "this model is the latest" and then it's purchased. Customer don't give a rats behind if they are getting a Santa Rosa or Merom chipset, only computer geeks would care at all.
A Consumer wants the software they are going to use be available on the platform they are buying and they want to be sure it works with certain printers.

Windows switchers are no different then current Mac users. They are just consumers like most everyone else. Only the Windows geeks would care at all.
The Macbook is great deal.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

The connection is that the GPU (the new GMA or a graphics card) and the NAND cache (Robson) are all part of the santa rosa spec as well as the 800MHz FSB. A santa rosa MacBook Pro wouldn't use the GMA, but would use the faster FSB and the NAND cache.

You're mixing things up there. Santa Rosa comes with and without integrated graphics (965GM and 965PM). It also comes with and without Robson. And the choice of using Robson or not has absolutely nothing to do with the integrated or dedicated graphics. Apple will most certainly use the 965PM chipset. And that has no implication whatsoever regarding the possible use of Robson.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Pros know. That might be a stupid way of putting it, but if you're prepared to spend the extra dollars for a MacBook Pro, you've probably done your research and know what you're getting. Apple knows this and they want to give the pros a reason to buy the pro machines. If all of the portables had the same specs, nobody would.

Yeah, but the MBPs have dedicated graphics. Do you really think that pros are going to think that the X3100 is in the same league as the graphics card in the MBP? I mean, it sucks less than the 950, yeah, but it's still not a good performer.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hldan 

Don't expect the Santa Rosa chipset to be in all price levels of Windows PCs.

Why not? They certainly have SR in the MacBook price/spec range.

[ph0ust]

Originally Posted by hldan 

I really hate misguided ignorance. Get real dude. Most consumers go into a store and buy whatever is on the shelf. The salesman will tell them, "this model is the latest" and then it's purchased. Customer don't give a rats behind if they are getting a Santa Rosa or Merom chipset, only computer geeks would care at all.
A Consumer wants the software they are going to use be available on the platform they are buying and they want to be sure it works with certain printers.

Windows switchers are no different then current Mac users. They are just consumers like most everyone else. Only the Windows geeks would care at all.
The Macbook is great deal.

whatever. i actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you are also contradicting your own completely opinionated argument. i don't want to start a flame way here... but to call me out as ignorant while contradicting yourself is a bit lame.

i think you are right in what consumers go look for. they look for what they know. part of that inhibits "switching" since they are totally unfamiliar with os x. the little 'x' for closing apps being on the opposite side of a window is enough to preclude many smart people i know from dealing with all the other things they'll have to retrain their brain on. so if you think that last-generation hardware is going to be fine with them YOU are being ignorant. comparably priced laptops do, and will continue to as they constantly come out, include the newest hardware. apple tries to get people to switch based on os x (and related software benefits), for them to convolute the sale by having to justify it over antiquated hardware is pretty foolish. why do you think they moved to intel to begin with?!?!

most of those salespeople, not in an apple store obviously, are going to tell them that the mac is not using the "latest" (at least not in the mb's case). they also are not likely using a mac.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by hldan 

Get real dude. Most consumers go into a store and buy whatever is on the shelf.

That's true for a lot of consumers. For a lot of others, a computer is about the third most expensive thing they'll ever purchase next to their home and their car. They don't take it lightly.

I've heard people in stores such as Best Buy say to salesmen "I just want a computer that looks cool" or something to that effect. I've seen others who wouldn't even consider purchasing there because the salesmen are idiots and no help at all.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

That's true for a lot of consumers. For a lot of others, a computer is about the third most expensive thing they'll ever purchase next to their home and their car. They don't take it lightly.

I've heard people in stores such as Best Buy say to salesmen "I just want a computer that looks cool" or something to that effect. I've seen others who wouldn't even consider purchasing there because the salesmen are idiots and no help at all.

That's true, but as I mentioned earlier even the people that have a list of questions about a new Mac purchase don't ask about the code named "santa rosa chipset" nor do they ask if this is Intel's brand new processor. I have worked at Best Buy and Frys and the most a consumer will confirm with the salesman is the processor speed and the amount of memory.
They don't care if it's got 4MB Cache, 800Mhz system bus or if the hard disk spins at 5400 or 7200 RPM.
It's slightly unwarranted to be so upset that Apple did not place the Santa Rosa chipset in the Macbooks. The current speeds are incredible against the competition.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by ph0ust 

whatever. i actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you are also contradicting your own completely opinionated argument. i don't want to start a flame way here... but to call me out as ignorant while contradicting yourself is a bit lame.

i think you are right in what consumers go look for. they look for what they know. part of that inhibits "switching" since they are totally unfamiliar with os x. the little 'x' for closing apps being on the opposite side of a window is enough to preclude many smart people i know from dealing with all the other things they'll have to retrain their brain on. so if you think that last-generation hardware is going to be fine with them

most of those salespeople, not in an apple store obviously, are going to tell them that the mac is not using the "latest" (at least not in the mb's case). they also are not likely using a mac.

Um, I don't see where I contradicted myself. Maybe you read my post wrong. These small differences in the way a Mac works against Windows is also unnecessary to worry about when making a buying decision. Consumers deal with change everyday.
Many people trash their old tube TV of 30 years in favor of a new plasma screen with a remote that takes them a year to figure out when their old one only had 2 buttons and yet they still buy it.

Again, the people on this forum complaining about Santa Rosa missing on the new Macbooks are all computer geeks and they are the only ones that would care. I know, I'm a computer geek myself and I was looking forward to seeing Santa Rosa in Apple's baseline notebooks but it didn't happen and so be it, Macbook is still a fast computer.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by hldan 

It's slightly unwarranted to be so upset that Apple did not place the Santa Rosa chipset in the Macbooks.

With that I agree completely. The new processor was introduced by Intel, what, a week ago? And MacBook is Apple's low-end portable. I wouldn't expect it either.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

With that I agree completely. The new processor was introduced by Intel, what, a week ago? And MacBook is Apple's low-end portable. I wouldn't expect it either.

Yes, and ~20 OEMs have already released ~80 Santa Rosa based systems, including many at or below the MacBook's price points.

Not getting SR today means the MB won't get SR for another 7 months. I would have rather seen Apple leave the MB as-was for 2 months and then upgrade to SR.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by hldan 

That's true, but as I mentioned earlier even the people that have a list of questions about a new Mac purchase don't ask about the code named "santa rosa chipset" nor do they ask if this is Intel's brand new processor. I have worked at Best Buy and Frys and the most a consumer will confirm with the salesman is the processor speed and the amount of memory.
They don't care if it's got 4MB Cache, 800Mhz system bus or if the hard disk spins at 5400 or 7200 RPM.
It's slightly unwarranted to be so upset that Apple did not place the Santa Rosa chipset in the Macbooks. The current speeds are incredible against the competition.

Except for the GPU, which is incredibly bad against the competition.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by hldan 

That's true, but as I mentioned earlier even the people that have a list of questions about a new Mac purchase don't ask about the code named "santa rosa chipset" nor do they ask if this is Intel's brand new processor. I have worked at Best Buy and Frys and the most a consumer will confirm with the salesman is the processor speed and the amount of memory.
They don't care if it's got 4MB Cache, 800Mhz system bus or if the hard disk spins at 5400 or 7200 RPM.
It's slightly unwarranted to be so upset that Apple did not place the Santa Rosa chipset in the Macbooks. The current speeds are incredible against the competition.

Originally Posted by hldan 

Again, the people on this forum complaining about Santa Rosa missing on the new Macbooks are all computer geeks and they are the only ones that would care. I know, I'm a computer geek myself and I was looking forward to seeing Santa Rosa in Apple's baseline notebooks but it didn't happen and so be it, Macbook is still a fast computer.

Not caring and not knowing are different things.

Most people do not know about these things, but their computing experience is certainly affected by such things, so they are factors.

We just happen to be enthusiastic, informed computer and Mac users, so we know these things, but while Johnny may not know how a larger cache size, RAM size or hard disk speed affects his computer's performance, he'll certainly realize a difference when he see his friend's PC laptop at work.

As an analogy, I might be ignorant of how many MPG my car makes, or how much maintenance it needs, or what type of engine it has-- but I certainly feel the difference when I'm behind the wheel and when I have to fuel and service my car.

Originally Posted by iDaver 

With that I agree completely. The new processor was introduced by Intel, what, a week ago? And MacBook is Apple's low-end portable. I wouldn't expect it either.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Yes, and ~20 OEMs have already released ~80 Santa Rosa based systems, including many at or below the MacBook's price points.

Not getting SR today means the MB won't get SR for another 7 months. I would have rather seen Apple leave the MB as-was for 2 months and then upgrade to SR.

I agree to a certain extent with the iDaver, but with the caveat of things not going the way the mduell predicts. This is in fact what I'm afraid of.

There are two main scenarios possible here. It may be that Apple has updated the MacBooks so modestly simply in order to give it time to roll out new, beefier MBPs. If that's the case, then we should see a SR MacBook update in maybe a month or two at most. This would be fine with me.

However, if the MacBook drags on with its current specs for another six months or more, then I'd say Apple has dropped the ball on what could have been a most excellent MacBook that didn't directly compete with or threaten the MBP line.

Also, I have a problem with the MacBook being referred to as low-end. It is not a low-end machine the way Apple markets, prices and originally spec'ed it up. It is more of a middle-range notebook. Apple doesn't really offer a low-end notebook, and the way Apple markets its computers one would say that Apple doesn't really make low-end PCs.

Of course, they could be said to be low-end in comparison to their more powerful brethren, however in relation to most PCs Macs are certainly not so. At the very least I don't think that a low end Mac should = crap.

[iDaver]

Very good points, Gamoe.

iBooks and MacBooks have always been updated around mid-spring and around mid-fall. I have followed them pretty closely since spring 2001 and can't think of an exception (correct me if I'm wrong) so I expect this MacBook revision is all we get, until October.

It'll be interesting to see what Apple does with MacBook Pros and if they introduce some kind of pro or semi-pro replacement for the 12" PowerBook. Maybe the MacBook is it.

Since more and more people are buying portable computers I would expect the company has put considerable thought into plans for the MacBook lineup, whether we like the results or not. As many have said, it's not necessarily what we forum readers think, that matters. We are but a small percentage of the computer buying public.

[Simon]

The MB is a low-end portable in the sense that Apple offers nothing portable for less. If you're on a tight budget and you want a portable Mac the MB is all there is.

Any potential switcher is going to see that for $1100 he can get significantly better specs if he goes with a PC notebook than with a MB. OS X advantages can make up for some of that, but not all. A decent and competitive MB update was a slam dunk until greedy Steve figured out that using the old boards would jack up profits even further. It's a shame considering what a great offer the MB was a year ago.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Not getting SR today means the MB won't get SR for another 7 months. I would have rather seen Apple leave the MB as-was for 2 months and then upgrade to SR.

I'll go out on a limb and say you're wrong.

They'll wait with the SR MacBook until they can ship them in the insane numbers these machines are selling at.

This update costs Apple nothing in terms of production line modifications or marketing. There is no reason for them not to release a new MacBook version with redesigned main logic board in two or three months.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

They'll wait with the SR MacBook until they can ship them in the insane numbers these machines are selling at.

What leads you to believe that SR is shipping in limited in capacity?
Dell, HP, Lenovo, and friends are all moving their high-volume business models (D6x0, T6x, etc) to SR first.

[vri2i]

A Macbook is is only a few seconds slower when benchmarked against a MacbookPro - hardly what I would call "crap"

In benchmark tests and running daily applications the GPU in the Macbook performs quite well; with the exception of playing 3D games.
So if you want to play games on your laptop buy a MacbookPro, for $500 more than a Macbook you get a serious upgrade.

The Macbook update offers more for the same price. I don't see a problem with that
Complaints because Apple didn't introduce a new processor that has been available for one week or completely re-design the the GPU don't seem valid....imho

[mduell]

Originally Posted by vri2i 

Complaints because Apple didn't introduce a new processor that has been available for one week or completely re-design the the GPU don't seem valid....imho

The new chipset is faster, costs less ($17 according to one claim, I can't find Intel's price list), is pretty much a drop-in replacement (not much development work), and saves power/extends battery life.

It's not a huge deal to not have the new chipset one week after launch. The big deal is that with Apple's usual release schedule this means we'll still have GMA950 as the only option in the sub-$2000 laptops for the next 7 months.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Very good points, Gamoe.

iBooks and MacBooks have always been updated around mid-spring and around mid-fall. I have followed them pretty closely since spring 2001 and can't think of an exception (correct me if I'm wrong) so I expect this MacBook revision is all we get, until October.

Thanks, iDaver. This is what I'm afraid of, but who's to tell?

Originally Posted by iDaver 

As many have said, it's not necessarily what we forum readers think, that matters. We are but a small percentage of the computer buying public.

Maybe, but we're the ones Apple should be paying attention to, right?

Originally Posted by mduell 

It's not a huge deal to not have the new chipset one week after launch. The big deal is that with Apple's usual release schedule this means we'll still have GMA950 as the only option in the sub-$2000 laptops for the next 7 months.

Honestly, the graphics capability is what I most care about (though a faster FSB would be nice). Since my MacBook would become my primary computer for years to come, I just want it to be able to keep up with at least the regular graphical stuff. I mean, my eMac can't even do Core Image now and it has a real honest-to-goodness graphics card.

The MacBook is a higher-end model than the eMac was, so I would hope it could keep up with the regular stuff at least. However, I've heard that the MacBook's graphical power is only marginally better than my eMac's, which is a four-year old, low-end Mac. That worries me.-- Which is why I'm hoping for some kind of substantial graphics upgrade.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

The MacBook is a higher-end model than the eMac was, so I would hope it could keep up with the regular stuff at least. However, I've heard that the MacBook's graphical power is only marginally better than my eMac's, which is a four-year old, low-end Mac. That worries me.-- Which is why I'm hoping for some kind of substantial graphics upgrade.

The gaming performance of the MacBook video card (GMA950) and eMac video card (Radeon 9200) is about the same in some games; in other games GMA950 is quite a bit faster. But GMA950 has features that the Radeon 9200 lacks, which allows it to support things like Core Image/Video/Animation. GMA X3100 is a pretty nice upgrade, with the addition of hardware T&L, more shaders, higher clockrates, yada yada; perhaps we'll see it in the fall.

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by vri2i 

A Macbook is is only a few seconds slower when benchmarked against a MacbookPro - hardly what I would call "crap"

Yeah, even Cnet acknowledges that the MacBook is pretty competitve against the MBP.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The MB is a low-end portable in the sense that Apple offers nothing portable for less. If you're on a tight budget and you want a portable Mac the MB is all there is.

Any potential switcher is going to see that for $1100 he can get significantly better specs if he goes with a PC notebook than with a MB. OS X advantages can make up for some of that, but not all. A decent and competitive MB update was a slam dunk until greedy Steve figured out that using the old boards would jack up profits even further. It's a shame considering what a great offer the MB was a year ago.

I think you are a bit off base with your logic. Why do you think we see so many Sony Vaio's everywhere? Because people are willing to pay a premium even though Dell has a deal for half the Sony's price with the same features and were talking about Windows only machines.
Sony's 13.3" Vaio has a 1.66Ghz C2D and GMA 950 for $1400.00 U.S. For $1099.00 U.S. the Macbook has GMA 950 but 2.0Ghz C2D.
Your point is pointless, you make it sound like Apple is cheating customers when in fact they are offering more and the Macbook is not just a Mac only machine.
There would be some serious crying going on in this forum if Apple played the low end processor game like Sony does.
You should compare fairly before you judge.

[Gamoe]

Well, I think we've pretty much summed our respective views on the upgrade issue, so there's really no more point in beating the proverbial dead horse at this point, but I for one really hope Apple beefs the hell out of the MBPs and gives us poor "low-end" MacBook users with some kind of respectable graphics performance.

I guess we'll see in the upcoming months.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hldan 

I think you are a bit off base with your logic. Why do you think we see so many Sony Vaio's everywhere?

Hmm, actually I don't. I see Dells everywhere.

Because people are willing to pay a premium even though Dell has a deal for half the Sony's price with the same features and were talking about Windows only machines.
Sony's 13.3" Vaio has a 1.66Ghz C2D and GMA 950 for $1400.00 U.S. For $1099.00 U.S. the Macbook has GMA 950 but 2.0Ghz C2D.

Every time people start comparing Apple to Vaios it's because Sony is about the only PC notebook manufacturer that severely overprices their notebooks.

The point is that Apple is deliberately choosing to not use new components (even though the SR chipset is supposedly less expensive than the old Napa) in order to artificially jack up the MBPs value and encourage upsell. But if you take a look at what the best selling PC notebooks offer, you realize that nobody (apart from maybe Sony) is seriously expecting you to pay $1499 for a GMA 950.

I'm not asking for Apple to make cheaper notebooks, but at their price points they have to offer the same stuff the mainstream PC market is offering. And while everybody else is switching to SR with its improved graphics, Apple chose to stick with Napa and the completely outdated GMA 950. If the MB were $799 that might be an option, but it's definitely not when you charge up to $1499.

you make it sound like Apple is cheating customers when in fact they are offering more and the Macbook is not just a Mac only machine.

Of course they're not cheating anybody. It's business, they can charge whatever they want.

It all boils down to the observation that in the past year Apple kept MB prices constant while hardly updating the specs or features. In the meantime there have however been significant improvements on the component side (for example going from a GMA 950 to a GMA X3100). Rather than aggressively adopting these possibilities Apple chose to sit back hoping that more people will lay out an additional $500 to get a MBP. So while the MB was great value when it was introduced, it's now neither really cheap nor especially well spec'ed out.

And finally, there just is no compact MBP although there are many performance-aware buyers that want something smaller than a MBP. And those people then get to put up with a GMA 950 in a $1299 notebook. Yippee.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Every time people start comparing Apple to Vaios it's because Sony is about the only PC notebook manufacturer that designs their notebooks like they're actually going to be used by people.

Fixed that for you.

[Ado]

I think Apple didnt bother using SR in MB because it wouldnt leave any competition when adding it to MBP... SR only goes upto 2.4 for now.. How could U distinguish the consumer line to the pro line?

Unless there was a mobile xeon chip for the pros?

What I hate is the crap gpu, the new gpus for the SR mobo are dx10.. for those who play games in bootcamp.


Bad update apple, its soo half assed that its fishy...!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Ado 

I think Apple didnt bother using SR in MB because it wouldnt leave any competition when adding it to MBP... SR only goes upto 2.4 for now.. How could U distinguish the consumer line to the pro line?

That is indeed an issue, although it would have been solvable. I don't understand why Apple didn't keep the previous generation around for a less expensive low-end model while using SR for the X3100 for the high-end.

Something like
• $999: C2D 1.83 GHz, Napa w/ GMA 950, 1 GB RAM, Combo, white
• $1299: C2D 2.0 GHz, SR w/ GMA X3100, 1 GB RAM, SD, white
• $1499: C2D 2.0 GHz, SR w/ GMA X3100, 1 GB RAM, SD, black

That would have still left enough room for a 2.2 GHz MBP at the low end and a 2.4 GHz MBP at the high end. The $999 model would allow them to cater to the lowest end w/o requiring any additional development resources (basically they continue selling the old model at a reduced price) while the $1299 model would have cost less to produce (less expensive CPU) and offered a much better GPU.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I'll go out on a limb and say you're wrong.

They'll wait with the SR MacBook until they can ship them in the insane numbers these machines are selling at.

This update costs Apple nothing in terms of production line modifications or marketing. There is no reason for them not to release a new MacBook version with redesigned main logic board in two or three months.

I thought about this more, and I think you're on to something.

This update took nothing. Literally nothing. Tell the guys on the line to put in more RAM, bigger disks (which they were doing anyway for the BTOs), and a different processor/optical drive. No engineering, development, or design work at all. Just like the recent quad core option on the Mac Pro.

So I hope you're right. The MBP/iMac will both get SR in the next month, and then Apple can redo the MB logic board for SR.

[Ado]

AMD announces SR competitor-

DailyTech - AMD "Puma" Mobile Platform Details Unveiled

[ph0ust]

the strangest thing about this update is the timing. doing this after the sr launch/release is just plain bizarre! if they are planning on a sr update in the near term, they quite obviously should have gotten this update out last month before ALL OTHER VENDORS started talking sr equipment. apple now says "hey we have new stuff too... using the old stuff... check it out!" hardly news worthly in the face of upgraded, competitive product from the windows crew. if they had released these before all that talk it would have been a lot more reasonable.

the timing of this update is what i find hard to figure out. i can come up with many reasons why they did it and none of them make sense. we all know that mbs will eventually have sr. my guess is that if they planned on that soon, they wouldn't have pushed this update at this time. sad if that is true.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That is indeed an issue, although it would have been solvable. I don't understand why Apple didn't keep the previous generation around for a less expensive low-end model while using SR for the X3100 for the high-end.

Something like
• $999: C2D 1.83 GHz, Napa w/ GMA 950, 1 GB RAM, Combo, white
• $1299: C2D 2.0 GHz, SR w/ GMA X3100, 1 GB RAM, SD, white
• $1499: C2D 2.0 GHz, SR w/ GMA X3100, 1 GB RAM, SD, black

That would have still left enough room for a 2.2 GHz MBP at the low end and a 2.4 GHz MBP at the high end. The $999 model would allow them to cater to the lowest end w/o requiring any additional development resources (basically they continue selling the old model at a reduced price) while the $1299 model would have cost less to produce (less expensive CPU) and offered a much better GPU.

Another thought: Why is Apple pushing the clockrate so high in their low-end laptop? The way Intel's (and most chip makers) pricing structure is set up, the price/performance curve is very steep at the top; picking up another 167Mhz may double the price of the chip. With the Intel binaries generally needing more RAM than PPC, and shared memory for the graphics debiting from main memory, how about making the $1299 model 1.8Ghz and 2GB RAM? That would also create a bigger megahertz gap between the MB and MBP.

[hldan]

To: Simon. It's obvious to everybody on this forum topic that Apple ditched placing SR in the Macbook for whatever reason but either you are quite delusional or you're just another cheapskate that lives and breathes at Walmart's bargain basement. Despite what you think, they are millions of people that want "quality" and not just matched specs. This happens with car purchases everyday. Sony's Vaio's (although overpriced) look much nicer and build quality is generally better than Dell or HP.
Now it would be really nice if you really did your homework and backed up your statements as I mentioned earlier but you seem to talk more and prove less. That being said, I took the liberty to show that Dell is on par with Apple's pricing and features.
Check out the links. I spec'd out a Dell Inspiron 15.4" for $899.00. Shared graphics, Vista Home Basic (includes no media suite) slower ram. Not too familiar about the AMD Turion 64.
Also I spec'd out an XPS system. For $1199 GMA 950, No DVD Burner, 80GB HDD and 1.83 C2D. In Fact GMA950 is across the board on all XPS 12". For $1473 still no DVD Burner. I didn't see SR in any of these.
Dell customers cry as well that Apple offers more on the new Macbook.

Select an 1501 PC-Care Protection Bundle and Save Up to 10% More

Featured Notebooks

[mduell]

hldan: Try comparing the Dell Latitude D630, a Santa Rosa based notebook, to the MacBook.



$200 cheaper than the MacBook with AppleCare at the same weight and a fifth of an inch thicker. The case is 0.5" wider and deeper because the screen is 1" bigger.