[hldan]

Alright, that's a fine set up of specs for the Dell but it's not much as far as cost difference. There's no reason to even consider the warranty because people are not going to make a buying decision on which platform because one has a better warranty. It's really only $100.00 U.S. difference. I could be wrong but I didn't notice a DVD burner or camera on the Dell either otherwise the specs match very closely. Still my point is valid, Apple is not overcharging for what you are getting on the Macbook. As I mentioned before the Dell needs to be compared to the Sony Vaio. If people care that much about the SR chip when making a buying decision then the platform better be top on the list.
If I had to pay $400.00 more for a Mac I would, I have. It's my platform of choice.

Simon is the poster that feels as long as a cheap Dell exist the Macbook doesn't deserve a chance.

[butterfly0fdoom]

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but Apple bumped the Superdrive from 6x to 8x, as well, on the MacBook update.

[imitchellg5]

I thought that was new, but I wasn't sure.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hmm, I bought one MB and two MBPs this last year. I doubt I'm arguing this because I'm 'cheap' and I live in a 'Walmart basement'.

hldan, why are you trying to make this discussion personal? Let's stick to arguments, ok?

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.

I'm not going to Dell's horrible site to spec out a notebook for you. Others have already done that and proven the obvious: Dell will always have the cheaper notebook. But that wasn't really the issue either, was it?

What I did do however, is show a possible line-up that wouldn't have costed Apple more money, but would have appealed better to many potential buyers. When you see how simple that was, it becomes quite clear that this weak update was introduced mainly to strengthen the MBP. For MB buyers that's not a very nice prospect.

Simon is the poster that feels as long as a cheap Dell exist the Macbook doesn't deserve a chance.

Where do you get this from??? Nowhere have I said such a thing. Why do chose to attack me instead of my arguments?

The simple fact remains that Apple has hardly updated the specs of the MB although better components have become available and are affordable. Other manufacturers have updated or will update shortly. While the MB was excellent value a year ago, this weak update strategy will let the MB fall behind competition and that will hurt sales.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

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.

Apple put themselves into a corner there. Right from the start the MBs were clocked rather high (the high-end CD MB had the same CPU and clock as the low-end CD MBP), but Merom clock speeds aren't increasing fast. With the SR Meroms the MBP is stuck at 2.4 and 2.2, while the MB previously reached 2.0 GHz now making 2.16 GHz the obvious upgrade. That OTOH put the MB dangerously close to the MBP. And I believe not choosing SR for the MB had a lot to do with this.

That said, what else can they do now? Making the $1299 model a 1.8 GHz machine like you suggest would have been a CPU downgrade and therefore not a realistic option. Apple would have had to start out the original CD MB at 1.67 and 1.83 GHz for that to work out now. I suggested they could have stuck to the 1.83 GHz and 2.0 GHz while introducing SR with the X3100 on the 2.0 GHz model and reducing the price of the 1.83 GHz Napa model. That would have allowed them to keep the MB away from the MBP's specs.

Obviously Apple believes the main selling point is the CPU clock. That does make some sense: most ads for really cheap PC notebook show models with pretty low clock rates. Choosing higher clocked CPUs allows Apple to compete with more expensive PC notebooks where they have an actual chance. From the buyer's POV however, I doubt this pays off that much. How many MB buyers will notice the 8% clock difference between the 2.16 GHz and the 2.0 GHz model? Hardly anybody. What they will notice is more RAM and (if they play 3D games or use stuff like Aperture or Motion) a better GPU. Apple got the former right by increasing the RAM baseline, but obviously they chose clock speed over the board/GPU improvement.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by hldan 

Simon is the poster that feels as long as a cheap Dell exist the Macbook doesn't deserve a chance.

hidan, all you have to do is look at Simon's sig to realize he's not a "cheapskate". Seriously, lay off the personal attacks and stick to the topic.

Oh, and Sony makes overpriced PCs. They have a lot of brand loyalty form Sony fans for goodness knows what reason (perhaps because they do make good products in other categories) but they have no real excuse for charging what they do for their PCs. Unfortunately, their fans let them get away with it, but I'm certainly not into blind brand loyalty.

Sony is the exception and there are a lot of good (looking and working) PCs out there for much less which are far more popular than the Sony Vaios. If we have to compare Macs to Vaios, then we might as well ask Apple to price Macs at three times the current prices and give thanks to Steve Jobs for it. Much more realistic comparisons would be the likes of Dell, which have the same crappy Windoze installed, but decent hardware at decent/regular prices.

[mduell]

On the $1099 model, Apple is spending 27% of the retail price on just the CPU; on the $1299 model it rises to 33%. Compared with 2-3% of the system retail price spent on RAM. That's not a very well cost-balanced system in my opinion.

Apple would have had more money for memory/GPU/profit if they went with SR instead of Napa. 2GHz/800Mhz is $53 (that's 2x1GB RAM at volume prices) cheaper than 2Ghz/667Mhz and 2.2Ghz/800Mhz is $107 (about the same as 2GB RAM in volume) cheaper than 2.16Ghz/667Mhz. I can't find chipset pricing anymore, but someone else reported that would save them another $17.

[jools]

The best news about this update is the discounts available on the previous model!
2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive - White MacBook = $1074.99

I'm just waiting for a similar on Amazon.co.uk!

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but Apple bumped the Superdrive from 6x to 8x, as well, on the MacBook update.

Wait, according to this, it is 6x. Click on the side view of the with the optical drive.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The GMA 950 just plain sucks. It might be OK on a $599 mini, but it is definitely not OK on a $1099 MB. And it's outright ridiculous on a $1499 MB. Obviously Apple has been selling very many MBs lately. I'm surprised to see them become that lazy so quickly.

Simon, I have already done a BTO price comparison on Dell's site on page 2 of the forum topic and the 12" XPS line ships with GMA 950 all the way to the $1799.00 U.S. price point. These are not machines with Santa Rosa. Someone else already showed a Dell Latitude (considered a business computer) 14" with SR for $1199 with no DVD burner so every manufacturer cuts features somewhere.
Again where talking about a consumer that actually wants Windows. Again most consumers don't always buy on price without considering the OS. If a person is tired of Windows (which most of us here have been there) the fact that you can get a Dell for less with a better chipset isn't going to make the consumer go for it again.
Remember the Macbook is an "iBook" second generation, it's taylored for students and everyday users. It is not suppose to compete with Apple's pro line nor is it suppose to compete with the low end of Dell or HP offerings.
Now I apologize for what came across as my posting becoming personal towards you but your complaints about the Macbook update are just that, complaints.
[QUOTE=Simon;3384236]
I'm not going to Dell's horrible site to spec out a notebook for you. Others have already done that and proven the obvious: Dell will always have the cheaper notebook. But that wasn't really the issue either, was it?

Hldan:
See it's statements like that, that show that your are just complaining instead of comparing. I love a friendly argument about computers but you have to at least say,"Here's a great deal from Dell that offers much more than Apple for considerably less". Instead of saying, "You can get better on the Windows side for less". Then there's no reason to argue against your rant.

[hldan]

...

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

hidan, all you have to do is look at Simon's sig to realize he's not a "cheapskate". Seriously, lay off the personal attacks and stick to the topic.

Oh, and Sony makes overpriced PCs. They have a lot of brand loyalty form Sony fans for goodness knows what reason (perhaps because they do make good products in other categories) but they have no real excuse for charging what they do for their PCs. Unfortunately, their fans let them get away with it, but I'm certainly not into blind brand loyalty.

Sony is the exception and there are a lot of good (looking and working) PCs out there for much less which are far more popular than the Sony Vaios. If we have to compare Macs to Vaios, then we might as well ask Apple to price Macs at three times the current prices and give thanks to Steve Jobs for it. Much more realistic comparisons would be the likes of Dell, which have the same crappy Windoze installed, but decent hardware at decent/regular prices.

My name is actually HLdan. When comparing Apple's Macintosh to everything else it's only fair to compare Macs to everything on the Windows side. You can't cherry pick and say Sony is ridiculously overpriced and rule it out. You have to include Sony PC's as well, they are no exception.
If anything Sony should have been out of the PC business years ago based on their pricing. We are talking Sony vs. Dell and HP, (all Windows machines), at yet Sony's notebooks (at Apple's prices) still sell immensely.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hldan 

Simon, I have already done a BTO price comparison on Dell's site on page 2 of the forum topic and the 12" XPS line ships with GMA 950 all the way to the $1799.00 U.S. price point. These are not machines with Santa Rosa. Someone else already showed a Dell Latitude (considered a business computer) 14" with SR for $1199 with no DVD burner so every manufacturer cuts features somewhere.

The $1166 notebook I pointed out did not have a DVD burner, but neither does a $1099 ($1348 with 3 year warranty) MacBook. The difference is you can add a DVD burner to the Dell for $50, whereas the only way to get one in the MacBook is to add $200 for some other upgrades you may not need/want.

Not sure why you're focused on the 12" XPS... the MacBook can't come close to it's 8 hour battery life.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'm not going to Dell's horrible site to spec out a notebook for you. Others have already done that and proven the obvious: Dell will always have the cheaper notebook.

Actually, no: I specced it out regularly, and it was quite a bit more expensive than the MacBook INCLUDING AppleCare.

Regular price, though - I realize that prices vary completely according to lunch menu, weather report, physical orientation, and which way the general manager's dick hangs in the morning. That sort of bullshit doesn't fly with me; you can't count on it, and I refuse to take it into account.

[rubaiyat]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Santa Rosa and what's so good about it?

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat 

Pardon my ignorance, but what is Santa Rosa and what's so good about it?

Santa Rosa is the new Centrino architecture. It includes a faster front-side bus and it also has, for those without their own GPUs (such as the MacBook), much improved integrated graphics. And flash caching; those three are the ones that Macs can actually utilize, my dad the tech expert says everything else is more for Vista's benefit.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Wait, according to this, it is 6x. Click on the side view of the with the optical drive.

Apple - MacBook - Technical Specifications
The Apple Store (U.S.) - MacBook
For the second link, scroll down and click on "compare specs"

[rubaiyat]

Thanks ButterflyOfDoom

I thought Centrinos = crap. Not true any more?

Does this bring them closer to a Mac with dedicated graphics card? If so, how close?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by rubaiyat 

I thought Centrinos = crap. Not true any more?

Does this bring them closer to a Mac with dedicated graphics card? If so, how close?

I'm not sure why you ever thought that. Centrino has actually been sort of a mark of quality, because it means the laptop is using all Intel chips (CPU+chipset+wifi), instead of some off-brand hack the OEM could get for $0.50.

With the advancements in GMA X3100, Santa Rosa/Crestline pushes the MacBook/Mac mini further away from dedicated graphics by adding features to and improving the performance of the integrated option.

[imdipped]

I will guess that rubaiyat was thinking of Celeron.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by hldan 

My name is actually HLdan.

Noted. Thought that was an "i" at first.

Originally Posted by hldan 

When comparing Apple's Macintosh to everything else it's only fair to compare Macs to everything on the Windows side. You can't cherry pick and say Sony is ridiculously overpriced and rule it out.

Sony has it's own fan niche and I do think it's a little counter-productive to compare it along with the rest of the PC industry. The fact is most manufacturers don't charge those amounts, so I think it's more reasonable to compare Apple to the majority of manufacturers making mostly equivalent hardware rather than the overpriced exception. But let's agree to disagree here and be done with it.

[usna92]

Originally Posted by mdc 

I'm both disappointed and happy with this update. I was hoping for a new video card, but at the end of the day I don't play any games on my Mac and I know the GMA950 is enough for Leopard, but deep down I was hoping for more.
I am happy with the 120gb drive and $75 more for a 160gb.

I'm looking to sell my 17" Powerbook 1.67ghz and pick up a MacBook and a 24" iMac and a MacBook for my wife. I think this update will be enough on the MacBook side, and I'll hold off for the rumored iMac redesign.

I did the exact same thing. Even though I am a WoW addict, I thought the 24" iMac and the MacBook (for the occasional log-in) were sufficient. Considering that the cost was the same as the MacBook Pro I wanted, I thought I came out ahead.

usna92

[Simon]

never mind

[Parky]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

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

Then the problem here is your expectations and not what Apple has done.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Parky 

Then the problem here is your expectations and not what Apple has done.

Well I can assure you he's by far not the only one. While some people here might think it's ok for Apple to be good enough, others would like to see them be better.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Simon 

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.

I think you're right. I want a replacement for my PB G4 1.33 15" but at this time I am kinda stuck. I have a 1st gen MBP at work (17") and it is nice. However, I don't have $3000 or even $2000 or even $1500 to shell out for a new laptop. I have been watching with interest the falling MB and MBP prices in the refurb shop, so that might be a solution, but you said something that struck a cord with me.

Just because there are many of us that don't have 'apple money' (aka LOTS of moulah) it doesn't mean we want crappy computers. I've looked seriously at the MB and while it is a nice machine, I still think I need a few more pixels and a better graphics card for the reasons you mentioned.

I am a photographer (not big time, but enough to need more than iPhoto) and wonder how Aperture works on it. I also do a lot of podcasting and while GB works fine on my PB and presumably fine on the MBs, how will other pro apps work?

No plans to purchase any time soon, but watching and waiting.

[Ado]

These laptops wont be able to run Starcraft 2 and thats a big deal for me.
Apple u better change that brushed metal crap and go black.

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by Ado 

These laptops wont be able to run Starcraft 2 and thats a big deal for me.

And you know this how?

Seriously, quit spreading misinformation about a game that has:

1) Hasn't been released yet
2) Has no release date specified

... and most importantly:
3) No announced system requirements for either Windows or Mac.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

Just because there are many of us that don't have 'apple money' (aka LOTS of moulah) it doesn't mean we want crappy computers. I've looked seriously at the MB and while it is a nice machine, I still think I need a few more pixels and a better graphics card for the reasons you mentioned.

I am a photographer (not big time, but enough to need more than iPhoto) and wonder how Aperture works on it. I also do a lot of podcasting and while GB works fine on my PB and presumably fine on the MBs, how will other pro apps work?

No plans to purchase any time soon, but watching and waiting.

Aren't you taking this a bit far? You're reaction is only based on what someone wrote on this forum about the GMA 950. Now granted this GPU is no SLI based card (but Apple doesn't seem to want to go that way anyway) but it certainly runs Aperture just fine. I am posting a link to the GPU requirements on Apple's webpage below if you are to look.

Also certain people on this forum have negative opinions about the Macbook update based on "their" needs. I suggest you go to your local Apple retail store (if you live close enough to one) and check out the new Macbook and request an Apple genius to give you an Aperture demo on the Macbook and any other apps that you need for your productivity.

Some people wanted to run Windows Vista on the Macbook and the first concern came up was that the GMA 950 could not run the Aero Glass transparency features. The forums were swarmed with people saying it wouldn't work. Well, it works perfectly, someone had to try it first.
As far as being short on money, I agree with you, who doesn't want to spend as little as possible? At the same time, you get what you pay for. I brought this up before, Sony gets away with charging more but a lot of the cost goes towards build quality and decent components.
You shouldn't buy any computer based on specs alone. If that was the case then Dell and Emachines would be the only way to go (unless you need a Mac).
I know, that Dell's build quality is poor and the components are cheap until you get to the XPS and Lattitude lines.

Apple - Aperture - Tech Specs

[butterfly0fdoom]

Originally Posted by Ado 

These laptops wont be able to run Starcraft 2 and thats a big deal for me.
Apple u better change that brushed metal crap and go black.

Actaully, if my iBook can run Warcraft 3, the MacBook certainly should be able to run StarCraft 2. Blizzard's not that stupid. And besides, the GMA's actually an improvement over the 32 MB ATI chip in my iBook (which thereby ends my hate for integrated graphics).

[ajprice]

I'm Installing Warcraft 3 on my Macbook now, I'll let you know how it runs.

Edit: Installed and running very well with max settings at 1920x1200 on a Dell 2407 (which my G4 with 64Mb Geforce2 couldn't do smoothly).

(Whitebook 2.16GHz with 2GB RAM).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hldan 

Some people wanted to run Windows Vista on the Macbook and the first concern came up was that the GMA 950 could not run the Aero Glass transparency features. The forums were swarmed with people saying it wouldn't work. Well, it works perfectly, someone had to try it first.

The only people saying that were the ones trying to be uninformed and/or spread FUD. It had been known since the beginning of time* that GMA950 would fully support the Aero Glass interface.

* early Vista betas... which stretch back a looooong way

Originally Posted by ajprice 

I'm Installing Warcraft 3 on my Macbook now, I'll let you know how it runs.

Edit: Installed and running very well with max settings at 1920x1200 on a Dell 2407 (which my G4 with 64Mb Geforce2 couldn't do smoothly).

(Whitebook 2.16GHz with 2GB RAM).

What's the average and min framerate? 15 and 10 fps?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

I think you're right. I want a replacement for my PB G4 1.33 15" but at this time I am kinda stuck. I have a 1st gen MBP at work (17") and it is nice. However, I don't have $3000 or even $2000 or even $1500 to shell out for a new laptop. I have been watching with interest the falling MB and MBP prices in the refurb shop, so that might be a solution, but you said something that struck a cord with me.

Just because there are many of us that don't have 'apple money' (aka LOTS of moulah) it doesn't mean we want crappy computers. I've looked seriously at the MB and while it is a nice machine, I still think I need a few more pixels and a better graphics card for the reasons you mentioned.

I am a photographer (not big time, but enough to need more than iPhoto) and wonder how Aperture works on it. I also do a lot of podcasting and while GB works fine on my PB and presumably fine on the MBs, how will other pro apps work?

No plans to purchase any time soon, but watching and waiting.

Aperture should work fine as long as you max out the RAM. A faster internal HD might help as well. I think it should be noted that just because the MacBook has integrated graphics doesn't mean it sucks at everything. Just most 3D games. And there are some 3D games which are very playable as has been noted. The MacBook plays the Universal version of Jedi Academy a good deal smoother than my Power Mac does with a 256 Mb Radeon 9800 Pro. Obviously it's not a completely fair comparison. But as you can see above, it is still a good deal better than say an iBook or my 12" PowerBook.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by hldan 

Also certain people on this forum have negative opinions about the Macbook update based on "their" needs.

Oh, goodness forbid we watch our for "our" needs and wants as consumers. And don't you think that if enough people are asking, then it could be the needs of many and thus eventually in the interest of Apple to add it?

Originally Posted by Parky 

Then the problem here is your expectations and not what Apple has done.

Sure, it's expectation and competition. Those are the primary driving forces behind the evolution and betterment of products in a free market economy. I don't actually see a "problem", though-- Just Mac users voicing their opinions, with some Apple PR people amongst them.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Well I can assure you he's by far not the only one. While some people here might think it's ok for Apple to be good enough, others would like to see them be better.

Right on!

I want Apple to be better. I'm not content with it being "good enough". We need to expect more from Apple and voice our opinions online, offline, officially and unofficially. That's one of the few ways Apple can get better. I assure you Apple doesn't get better through complacent Mac users who think its blasphemy to voice an opinion that's not totally positive about Apple's products.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

I want Apple to be better. I'm not content with it being "good enough". We need to expect more from Apple and voice our opinions online, offline, officially and unofficially. That's one of the few ways Apple can get better. I assure you Apple doesn't get better through complacent Mac users who think its blasphemy to voice an opinion that's not totally positive about Apple's products.

Okay, see now at this point I actually agree with you but you are missing my point. Believe me I love my dualie G5 but if it was up to me I would be typing on a 30" iMac with SR,Blu-Ray optical drive, SLI graphics with 1GB, 1TB HDD, and an acutal Apple mouse with 2 real right/left click buttons with a version of OSX that has complete consistency and fully customizable. Those were my requirements early last year. Where is this machine? It doesn't exist as of yet. Why do I want it? Because Apple has set a precedence for themselves where their customers love what they do and just gotta keep more of it coming.

How come we don't expect that from Dell? Because Dell sets a precedence where they are looked at as low-end and if they don't give the best overall their customer won't complain.

Now I ask, since this thread has become quite interesting, could someone please offer what they think the ideal Macbook should be while still keeping it separated from the MBP?

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by hldan 

Okay, see now at this point I actually agree with you but you are missing my point.

I think I got your point, but I appreciate the congruence.

Originally Posted by hldan 

Now I ask, since this thread has become quite interesting, could someone please offer what they think the ideal Macbook should be while still keeping it separated from the MBP?

The MBPs need to be update. That's for sure. I say Apple should make a major MBP update in the next month or so and then release MacBooks with the same specs, but with Santa Rosa and with the best graphics option it has available (which would never even touch the MBPs in graphical power anyway).

Perhaps Apple could include a dedicated graphics card option on the middle or top MacBook configuration. This would, of course, still not match the MBPs, but give gamers and casual users a bit more graphical "uhmph!". This might actually drive me to buy a more expensive MacBook, whereas today i wouldn't even touch the top config because it has nothing particularly enticing for me.

I'd like LED backlighting, but I don't know how much that would cost and if it would be reasonable for Apple to include.

That's all. My main gripe is the graphics chip.

[ajprice]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What's the average and min framerate? 15 and 10 fps?

Don't have it connected to the dell at the mo, but on the macbooks screen wc3 was running at 45-50fps while kicking around the first orc campaign tutorial level (1280x800, 32 bit colour and max settings).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hldan 

...could someone please offer what they think the ideal Macbook should be while still keeping it separated from the MBP?

I already posted a possible MB lineup a few days ago in this thread. It's not 'ideal' in the sense that it's certainly not the perfect notebook, but I think they're realistic configurations if you consider what it costs Apple to make them and how they previously spec'ed these machines.
• $999: C2D 1.83 GHz, Napa w/ GMA 950, 1 GB RAM, Combo, 80 GB, white
• $1299: C2D 2.0 GHz, SR w/ GMA X3100, 1 GB RAM, SD, 120 GB, white
• $1499: C2D 2.0 GHz, SR w/ GMA X3100, 1 GB RAM, SD, 160 GB, black

That would then make way for the following updated MBP lineup:
• $1999: 15" (w/ LED backlight), C2D 2.2 GHz, SR, Radeon Mobility 1600 w/ 256 MB VRAM, 2 GB RAM, SD, 160 GB
• $2499: 15" (w/ LED backlight), C2D 2.4 GHz, SR, Radeon Mobility X18/9xx or GeForce Go 79xx/84xxM w/ 256/512 MB VRAM, 2 GB RAM, SD, 200 GB
• $2999: 17" (w/ LED backlight), C2D 2.4 GHz, SR, Radeon Mobility X18/9xx or GeForce Go 79xx/84xxM w/ 256/512 MB VRAM, 2 GB RAM, SD, 200 GB

Such a lineup would still leave ample room for a lightweight small "MB lite" with a LV C2D, no internal optical, and at least a GMA X3100.

The GPU situation of the MBP is difficult. From a marketing POV they should definitely upgrade from the old Radeon Mobility X1600, but it's questionable how much sense that makes on the 15" MBP, since whatever they could presently upgrade to will likely have a higher TDP at its design clock rate. And financially it hardly makes sense to use a more expensive GPU if you then have to downclock it. The presently used X1600 is still not running at its full design clock rate in the current 15" MBP (IIRC it is in the 17" though). So while I doubt its makes a lot of sense to use a severely underclocked Mob X1900 or a 84xxM, it of course would make a better impression on the spec sheet. Finally, Apple has been using ATI exclusively on the MBP and PB (except for the 12" model) since October 2003. I'm anxious to see if this will change - especially now that ATI belongs to AMD.

Also keep in mind that when Apple switches from 2.16/2.33 GHz Napa MBPs to 2.2/2.4GHz SR MBPs they will actually save money. Meroms for SR are significantly less expensive than the previous Napa Meroms and the SR chipset is supposedly cheaper than Napa too. Of course LED backlighting will add to component costs, but hopefully there's still some room left for a more expensive GPU or more VRAM. Larger/faster disks are to be expected as well since availability has become better and cost has reduced. And BTW, what's the news on slim 8x DL burners? The current MBP only has the 8x burner on the 17" model due to space constraints. I'm not sure if 8x drives for the 15" have become available in the meantime.