Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

hldan · Feb 14, 2006, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

The Apple Store just went back up, and theres already a newer MBP - a 2.16 Ghz Model. For $300 though, not really worth it for the extra 166 mhz....

www.apple.com/store

You have to know how to make it cheaper. The MacBook 2.0Ghz comes with a 1GB Ram stick. You can configure it to have (2) 512 dimms for $100.00 less U.S. Now the 2.16Ghz upgrade will be offset and will now only cost $200.00 U.S.
I would do it in a heartbeat!!!

Zyphere · Feb 14, 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by hldan

You have to know how to make it cheaper. The MacBook 2.0Ghz comes with a 1GB Ram stick. You can configure it to have (2) 512 dimms for $100.00 less U.S. Now the 2.16Ghz upgrade will be offset and will now only cost $200.00 U.S.
I would do it in a heartbeat!!!

But that'd affect future upgradeability for those that want to hit 2GB.

mduell · Feb 14, 2006, 10:31 PM

Apple's making a good margin on the $300 2.16Ghz upgrade... the wholesale price difference is $214.

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Oooo that is HARSH!! I agree, how can they update a machine that has not already shipped?! If I had an order on a 1.67 model, there would be no doubt about it that I would cancel it. I would suffer the extra waiting time, as I would not want an outdated machine as soon as I got it. SHAME ON YOU APPLE!

Originally Posted by ender78

I just called and was advised that they will NOT be upgrading the machines. That really pisses me off. TIme to cancel my order. How the HELL can they upgrade machines before they ship.

Your sense of entitlement is impressive. A month ago you felt $2k for 1.67Ghz was a good buy, and you bought. Technology moves on and you can't expect a company to stop upgrading after you decide to purchase.

Of course, you were misinformed, and you are in fact getting the faster model.

Originally Posted by inkhead

it's obvious that apple was just underclocking the chips and using samples lower rated samples. Now that they figured out that the batches they got work fine at 1.8 they decided to run with it instead of underclocking them to 1.67 (which is a speed intel never shipped)

Nonsense, Apple isn't under or overclocking any chips. You can't change the multiplier on an Intel chip, so they'd have to change the bus speed, which they haven't done.

Although it sounds like whatever ODM Apple is using for the MacBook Pro suddenly has a large stock of 1.67Ghz parts on hand.

Zyphere · Feb 15, 2006, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Although it sounds like whatever ODM Apple is using for the MacBook Pro suddenly has a large stock of 1.67Ghz parts on hand.

Hmmm.
Perhaps for the iBooks? Though those are supposed to be using Core Solo chips..

Maybe the 1.67 GHz chips are going to be put in the 13" MBPs. Traditionally the smaller notebooks will have slightly lowered processor speeds. Unfortunate for individuals like myself who want portability for half of the day and a decent desktop supplement for the other.

hldan · Feb 15, 2006, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zyphere

But that'd affect future upgradeability for those that want to hit 2GB.

True, but I am just talking about the upfront price. By changing the configuration of the ram you end up with the same ram size for $100.00 less. Most people, even MacZealots, will buy a new computer and never upgrade the ram for several reasons, mostly because they are being cheap and lazy. So since many people are more apt to having the fastest processor it's more economical to have (2) 512 chips rather than 1GB. That being said, the 2.16Ghz upgrade will only cost $200.00.

tklassnik · Feb 15, 2006, 09:03 AM

I think putting the 1.67 duo's in the ibooks would be quite outrageous. When paying a premium for a powerbook, i would expect a significant difference in spec from the other consumer models, it would reduce the powerbook sales hugely.......but thinking about alot of us will have ordered or received our new powerbooks anyway so sales for apple will be fine. We'll just be a bit peeved.

moodymonster · Feb 15, 2006, 10:34 AM

why is it not in the UK?

mduell · Feb 15, 2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by hldan

True, but I am just talking about the upfront price. By changing the configuration of the ram you end up with the same ram size for $100.00 less. Most people, even MacZealots, will buy a new computer and never upgrade the ram for several reasons, mostly because they are being cheap and lazy. So since many people are more apt to having the fastest processor it's more economical to have (2) 512 chips rather than 1GB. That being said, the 2.16Ghz upgrade will only cost $200.00.

You're not making a fair comparison.
From 2Ghz CPU and 1x1GB, the 2.1Ghz upgrade is $300.
From 2Ghz CPU and 2x512MB, the 2.16Ghz upgrade is $300.

Originally Posted by tklassnik

I think putting the 1.67 duo's in the ibooks would be quite outrageous. When paying a premium for a powerbook, i would expect a significant difference in spec from the other consumer models, it would reduce the powerbook sales hugely.......but thinking about alot of us will have ordered or received our new powerbooks anyway so sales for apple will be fine. We'll just be a bit peeved.

Outrageous that those miserable people who can't afford to blow $2k+ on a MBP would actually get a modern competitive CPU. They should be moved back to G3s!
Never mind that the MBP has a better video card, bigger screen, more pixels, dual link DVI, and a metal case.

schalliol · Feb 15, 2006, 02:24 PM

Simply put, Apple doesn't want to screw you. They'd rather give you a machine with a measly 1GB of RAM in one stick than fill both slots with 512s. Maybe not everyone will upgrade the RAM, but it's so easy and most will need it over the useful life. Why throw away 1GB later?

olePigeon · Feb 15, 2006, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Outrageous that those miserable people who can't afford to blow $2k+ on a MBP would actually get a modern competitive CPU. They should be moved back to G3s!
Never mind that the MBP has a better video card, bigger screen, more pixels, dual link DVI, and a metal case.

Nothing wrong with the CPU being relatively close to spec. The iBook will have other shortcomings, like probably offered with only a CD-RW/DVD player (and not DVD writer), 64MB video card, 512MB RAM, smaller screen and/or less pixel density, and other stuff.

GreenwoodMO · Feb 15, 2006, 02:43 PM

If you had $2500 plus to spend when you ordered what you thought was the top of the line at 1.83GHz whats $300 more for the 2.16Ghz. That is the way I see it.

WOPR · Feb 15, 2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by moodymonster

why is it not in the UK?

I wondered that too...

Enigmaaron · Feb 15, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by GreenwoodMO

If you had $2500 plus to spend when you ordered what you thought was the top of the line at 1.83GHz whats $300 more for the 2.16Ghz. That is the way I see it.

My feelings too. I just couldn't stand the additional wait time and probably won't notice the speed difference for what I do so I stuck with the 2GHz. If only I had a little more patience...

Rumz · Feb 15, 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by tklassnik

I think putting the 1.67 duo's in the ibooks would be quite outrageous. When paying a premium for a powerbook, i would expect a significant difference in spec from the other consumer models, it would reduce the powerbook sales hugely.......but thinking about alot of us will have ordered or received our new powerbooks anyway so sales for apple will be fine. We'll just be a bit peeved.

Has any one considered an upper-end Mac Mini with the 1.67 duo? (wouldn't that be sufficient to playback HD content?

)

schalliol · Feb 15, 2006, 05:33 PM

Oops, posted in wrong thread. Sorry!

Michael Jolly · Feb 15, 2006, 06:22 PM

For those in the UK the stores been updated and we now have 2.16GHZ Macbook pro just thought you would like to know