[malcolm347]

I am about to buy the 13 inch !5 macbook pro.

Does anyone know if they are going to release a model with new hardware in the next coming months??

I just dont wanna buy it now then have an "upgraded" version come out in a month.

Thanks!

[P]

A minor update is possible in say 3 months but I would not call it likely. There is no new CPU yet (the next Intel CPU generation, Ivy Bridge, is not due yet, and actually seems to be delayed) and the graphics are the latest series. My guess would be an update in the beginning of next year, based on release schedules, but there are really no rumors one way or the other.

Note that a lot of people, myself included, believe that the 13" MBP is going to be retired and its position taken over by the 13" MBA at some point in the future. I don't think that that is likely to happen soon, but don't wait too long. You might be sorry.

[fisherKing]

Originally Posted by P 

A minor update is possible in say 3 months but I would not call it likely. There is no new CPU yet (the next Intel CPU generation, Ivy Bridge, is not due yet, and actually seems to be delayed) and the graphics are the latest series. My guess would be an update in the beginning of next year, based on release schedules, but there are really no rumors one way or the other.

Note that a lot of people, myself included, believe that the 13" MBP is going to be retired and its position taken over by the 13" MBA at some point in the future. I don't think that that is likely to happen soon, but don't wait too long. You might be sorry.

i don't get that theory; why, really? then maybe later, the 11" mba is retired thanks to the iPad, which is retired due to the iPhone, which.... anyway, all speculation.

two things are certain: things change with apple, and without warning. and the 13" pros will sell quickly if they're discontinued (which is why i'm buying one new next week)

[malcolm347]

well in that case i will probably order mine this week. I am doing that financing offer from apple just for the heck of it.

Thanks!

[P]

Originally Posted by fisherKing 

i don't get that theory; why, really? then maybe later, the 11" mba is retired thanks to the iPad, which is retired due to the iPhone, which.... anyway, all speculation.

two things are certain: things change with apple, and without warning. and the 13" pros will sell quickly if they're discontinued (which is why i'm buying one new next week)

Of course it's speculation, but right now the difference between the 13" MBP and the MBA is the optical drive, a few extra ports and the fact that you can have a big HDD in the MBP. Apple was never overly concerned about the exact ports you had and anyone can see where the optical drive is going, so the one remaining saving grace is the big HDD. As soon as SSDs get cheap enough at large enough sizes, that argument goes away. My guess is that the 13" MBP is gone the very next day.

Remember how Apple killed the 12" Powerbook and only added a 13" MBP 3 years later - 2.5 years if you include the first 13" aluminium MB unibody. That computer never had a very stable position in Apple's lineup, and with the MBA getting the backlit keyboard back and a CPU that is certainly comparable to the one in the 13" MBP, I think that it is that time again.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by P 

Of course it's speculation, but right now the difference between the 13" MBP and the MBA is the optical drive, a few extra ports and the fact that you can have a big HDD in the MBP. Apple was never overly concerned about the exact ports you had and anyone can see where the optical drive is going, so the one remaining saving grace is the big HDD. As soon as SSDs get cheap enough at large enough sizes, that argument goes away. My guess is that the 13" MBP is gone the very next day.

Agreed.

Once Thunderbolt-to-Firewire adapters are readily available, the only advantages the 13" MacBook Pro has over the 13" Air will be

- HD (probably made mostly irrelevant by cheaper high-capacity SSDs)
- better display (offset by the Air's higher resolution)
- up to 16 GB RAM (though Apple only states up to 8). This is a biggie, but we'll see what options are offered on the AirPro by then.
- built-in optical drive. Optical what?

Originally Posted by P 

Remember how Apple killed the 12" Powerbook and only added a 13" MBP 3 years later - 2.5 years if you include the first 13" aluminium MB unibody. That computer never had a very stable position in Apple's lineup, and with the MBA getting the backlit keyboard back and a CPU that is certainly comparable to the one in the 13" MBP, I think that it is that time again.

That's not fair. The plastic MacBook was offered immediately as a replacement to the 12" PowerBook, and it was superior to the 12" PowerBook in every way and sacrificed *nothing* (what it gained in width it more than lost in thickness and general bulk).

[OreoCookie]

The 12"/13" models have always had a big overlap in terms of features and thus there was cannibalization. Even the original 12" PowerBook is a machine that I didn't get: I had an iBook at home and a PowerBook 12" at work, and to be honest, the differences were rather minor.

Now, the difference between the 13" Air and the 13" Pro are weight, expandability, optical drive, etc. But the writing is on the wall and Apple is reportedly experimenting with Air-like 15" MacBook Pros. When that machine is released, I expect that the two lines merge (again). Then we have 4 MacBooks (whether they'll be called Air or Pro is immaterial). They will all share the basic Air-like tapered design, lack an optical drive and you can choose between an 11", a 13 and a 15" screen.

If there are enough Thunderbolt peripherals available, there will be no need for an Express Card slot or FireWire (since there will be Thunderbolt-FireWire adapters).

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That's not fair. The plastic MacBook was offered immediately as a replacement to the 12" PowerBook, and it was superior to the 12" PowerBook in every way and sacrificed *nothing* (what it gained in width it more than lost in thickness and general bulk).

It lost the discrete graphics, which was a real step down in those days of GMA950 - and a fact that was heard in forums around the world.

If Apple is indeed intending to kill off the 15" MBP as well, that might be an explanation for the rather lackluster graphics in MBPs lately. I doubt Apple can fit an MXM and heatsink in an MBA chassis, so it'll be integrated graphics there as well if they go Air.

[SSharon]

I think the 15" is safe for some time now, but the 13" has one foot out the door. I also don't like that we think thunderbolt is an equivalent substitute to having all the ports on board. It is a major annoyance to have to carry adapters around when traveling and even for work to connect to external monitors/projectors. Thunderbolt certainly increases our expandability options, but I'd rather have a slightly larger machine with more full size ports.

[OreoCookie]

The DisplayPort is a full-size port. It's just that most projectors use DVI or VGA and you need to carry adapters anyway. Many modern monitors have DisplayPort natively. If the HDMI forum wasn't such a bunch of bastards, you could directly connect any Mac with DisplayPort to your monitor with HDMI in.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The DisplayPort is a full-size port. It's just that most projectors use DVI or VGA and you need to carry adapters anyway. Many modern monitors have DisplayPort natively. If the HDMI forum wasn't such a bunch of bastards, you could directly connect any Mac with DisplayPort to your monitor with HDMI in.

I thought the MBP has a mini display port? Whatever it has, there are plenty of PCs with full size DVI ports (like the old powerbooks used to have) and HDMI ports. Now I can't plug in a damn thing (except an apple cinema display maybe) with an adapter. Did I mention how annoying it is that my MBP doesn't even pass audio through HDMI?

[SVass]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The DisplayPort is a full-size port. It's just that most projectors use DVI or VGA and you need to carry adapters anyway. Many modern monitors have DisplayPort natively. If the HDMI forum wasn't such a bunch of bastards, you could directly connect any Mac with DisplayPort to your monitor with HDMI in.

What is the ratio of sales of HDMI monitors to those with Display Ports? Would Jobs prefer to sell laptops that can access any HDTV with a streaming movie or tv show (think HULU, Netflix, ESPN3)? or would he accept the number with Display Ports?

A new MBP with a separate graphics chip that decodes MPEG6 and audio, an HDMI output port, and no DVD is rumored to become available around Christmas.
sam

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SVass 

What is the ratio of sales of HDMI monitors to those with Display Ports?

No clue which one is more popular, but it doesn't really matter. But since HDMI and DisplayPort are both DVI + x, they're both compatible. In fact, there was a cable with an HDMI plug on one end and DisplayPort on the other. The problem is that the HDMI standards forum objected to that since the HDMI specs say that any cable must have HDMI connectors on both ends. So now you have to buy a DisplayPort-HDMI adapter and a regular HDMI cable. But that's not a technological barrier.

For all intents and purposes, if you want to connect a modern monitor, you can use a DisplayPort to connect to VGA, DVI, DisplayPort and HDMI using only a cable with the correct connectors on both ends. It's not necessary to offer both, HDMI and DisplayPort on one machine.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No clue which one is more popular, but it doesn't really matter. But since HDMI and DisplayPort are both DVI + x, they're both compatible. In fact, there was a cable with an HDMI plug on one end and DisplayPort on the other. The problem is that the HDMI standards forum objected to that since the HDMI specs say that any cable must have HDMI connectors on both ends. So now you have to buy a DisplayPort-HDMI adapter and a regular HDMI cable. But that's not a technological barrier.

For all intents and purposes, if you want to connect a modern monitor, you can use a DisplayPort to connect to VGA, DVI, DisplayPort and HDMI using only a cable with the correct connectors on both ends. It's not necessary to offer both, HDMI and DisplayPort on one machine.

I would suggest that EVERY modern digital tv set will have an HDMI connection and their sales far outnumber those of HD size computer monitors. The average person can purchase an HDMI to HDMI cable everywhere and he can even connect directly to his motel tv set to watch a streaming movie that he downloads at no cost from the web if his computer has a high speed HDMI connection.
sam

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No clue which one is more popular, but it doesn't really matter. But since HDMI and DisplayPort are both DVI + x, they're both compatible.

They're not, actually. DisplayPort uses packetized data, which is completely different from HDMI/DVI, which are both based on VGA signalling-wise. This is why DisplayPort can support much higher resolutions than single-link DVI over the same cable. There is however an option in the DisplayPort standard to be able to detect when a specific cable is attached and switch to DVI/HDMI-compatible signalling - the same way that Macs used to detect which adapter you plugged in to a mini-VGA or mini-DVI port to generate the correct output.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In fact, there was a cable with an HDMI plug on one end and DisplayPort on the other. The problem is that the HDMI standards forum objected to that since the HDMI specs say that any cable must have HDMI connectors on both ends. So now you have to buy a DisplayPort-HDMI adapter and a regular HDMI cable. But that's not a technological barrier.

It's because they calculate the royalty based on the number HDMI ports. This way they can squeeze 4 cents from whomever makes the adapter.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For all intents and purposes, if you want to connect a modern monitor, you can use a DisplayPort to connect to VGA, DVI, DisplayPort and HDMI using only a cable with the correct connectors on both ends. It's not necessary to offer both, HDMI and DisplayPort on one machine.

According to Wikipedia, VGA output is not possible that way - it requires an active adapter. Never tried it myself though.

Originally Posted by SVass

What is the ratio of sales of HDMI monitors to those with Display Ports? Would Jobs prefer to sell laptops that can access any HDTV with a streaming movie or tv show (think HULU, Netflix, ESPN3)? or would he accept the number with Display Ports?

I think his main priority is being able to show something on the display built into that laptop. Apple uses DisplayPort for the internal connection between GPU and display as well. The only other way to do that, "the old way", is called LVDS and is being phased out by both Intel and AMD by 2013.

This is the clever part about DisplayPort - soon enough, every laptop produced will have it and have to use it internally. The only interesting bit is if they bother putting a port on the outside of the box or not. Given the way the PC market works, you can bet that they will all put the port there - it's "for free", after all.

[P]

Originally Posted by SVass 

The average person can purchase an HDMI to HDMI cable everywhere and he can even connect directly to his motel tv set to watch a streaming movie that he downloads at no cost from the web if his computer has a high speed HDMI connection.
sam

The average person in all likelihood has a laptop with a VGA port. For some silly reason, low-end laptops are still exclusively VGA. This is what DisplayPort is here to fight. If it happens to kill HDMI along the way, then noone will cry about that, but that is not intention.

[Waragainstsleep]

Thats a good point, weren't these banned?
iWires Mini DisplayPort to HDMI Cable 2.0m - Apple Store (UK)

Yet Apple are still selling them.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

They're not, actually. DisplayPort uses packetized data, which is completely different from HDMI/DVI, which are both based on VGA signalling-wise. This is why DisplayPort can support much higher resolutions than single-link DVI over the same cable. There is however an option in the DisplayPort standard to be able to detect when a specific cable is attached and switch to DVI/HDMI-compatible signalling - the same way that Macs used to detect which adapter you plugged in to a mini-VGA or mini-DVI port to generate the correct output.

Oh, ok, I didn't know that, I stand corrected.
All I figured from working with DisplayPort is that it was pretty neat since with the right cable, you can connect your Mac to pretty much any display out there. The only annoyance is that you need so many adapters to be able to connect to all screens. But IMO the problem is that there are too many concurrent standards out there. E. g. most of the displays I use still have a DVI port or VGA rather than a DisplayPort or HDMI.

Originally Posted by P 

According to Wikipedia, VGA output is not possible that way - it requires an active adapter.

I've never opened up my DisplayPort-VGA adapter, so I don't know whether it's an active of a passive adapter.