[mduell]

Originally Posted by uicandrew

i don't think that is true. Socket 478 was for the Pentium 4 processors (around 2.0 Ghz) for desktops made around 2002. I know this for a fact because last year, i had to buy a new motherboard for my computer that bought in 2002. Not only that, but it was a cheap $500 dell, so it wasn't top of the line.

i seriously doubt they would revert back to 2002 (or earlier) technology

Socket 478 was released in 2001 (at 400Mhz) and is still alive and well today (at 667 and 800Mhz) for many of Intel's chips. Some P4s still use it (some use LGA775 instead). All of the Core Duo chips are listed as 478 pin.

[ero2]

so do you guys really think it is going to take until Feb 15th to ship these? I am hoping not, just wanted to get you guys feedback.

[Simon]

I wouldn't be surprised if it actually took Apple even longer. They were showing pre-production models, didn't have an idea about how much battery life to expect, etc. It looks like there's still some work to do.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Simon

I wouldn't be surprised if it actually took Apple even longer. They were showing pre-production models, didn't have an idea about how much battery life to expect, etc. It looks like there's still some work to do.

Oh really Simon? I wouldn't be surprised if Apple replaced the entire line by June of this year. In the past they have always overpromised and underdelivered. This year at Macworld they introduced 2 Intel Macs, one which is shipping already in under a week since Macworld and the other next month. Look for a posibility of the iBook and the Mac mini to be annonced and ready to ship by March and the PowerMacs will most likely will follow by the end of June. If you beg to differ just look at what happened with the iMac G5. Apple released this around the holidays and replaced it right away in January with Intel and a much better graphics card.
They are gonna rush these babies out as fast as they can. Intel has gotta get paid too so they are gonna release the entire line asap so they can sell.

[John123]

Agreed with Simon. I'd be surprised if they *do* ship by 2/15, frankly...

[ero2]

oh man oh man, what the heck am I going to do without a computer until 2/15 or later? I sold my powerbook to get this, ahhhhh......well I really hope they announce shipping soon, otherwise I my rebuy an older pbook or something, LOL. I used my pbook every single day, and even the 5 days I have spent without it have been quite nerveracking on a pc, LOL. Oh well, what to do, what to do...

[uicandrew]

Originally Posted by mduell

Socket 478 was released in 2001 (at 400Mhz) and is still alive and well today (at 667 and 800Mhz) for many of Intel's chips. Some P4s still use it (some use LGA775 instead). All of the Core Duo chips are listed as 478 pin.

thanks for the correction/information. that is amazing. they are still using 478.

ero2, i sold my mac mini for the macBook (i was expecting a intel mac mini) and i have all my email (from Tiger's Mail app) on a external hard drive. i'm using my laptop right now that i have listed in my signature.

i think/hope feb 15 is realistic. apple wouldn't want an angry mob if they couldn't deliver what they promise. besides, the faster they get the macbook out the door, the sooner they can announce the other intel ibooks. i don't think apple would announce the ibook before the macbooks starts shipping. i mean, they could lose sales on their higher profit margin macbook if people see a cheaper ibook alternative.

[Simon]

I'm also not too optimistic because IIRC Steve said February and also the AppleStore says 'Ships: February'. That sounds like they're leaving some margin. February is compatible with 2/28, February 15 is only compatible with 2/15.

[John123]

Originally Posted by uicandrew

i think/hope feb 15 is realistic. apple wouldn't want an angry mob if they couldn't deliver what they promise. besides, the faster they get the macbook out the door, the sooner they can announce the other intel ibooks. i don't think apple would announce the ibook before the macbooks starts shipping. i mean, they could lose sales on their higher profit margin macbook if people see a cheaper ibook alternative.

Well, sorry, but Apple has frequently missed shipping deadlines in the past. It's quite common. As for an "angry mob" -- you're talking about a small minority of users -- and ones who are already loyal at that. If you're an early adopter, odds are good you're piped into this stuff, and you're going to keep buying Apple crap no matter what.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by uicandrew

thanks for the correction/information. that is amazing. they are still using 478.

It uses a 479-pin interface but it isn't the same pin arrangement as the prior version. See here for more info.

[Peabo]

Mine is scheduled to ship on the 7th of February. Is that cos i got my order in really early?

[schalliol]

Interesting, when did you place your order? I placed mine abotu 10 min after the specs were noted and it still says 2/15, although online it says it was placed a couple days after it was.

[Peabo]

Mine says it was ordered on the 10th of January at 9:20PM GMT. Not sure what time that is in relation to the site being updated, but I ordered it as soon as I was able to access the store. Just so you know, it's the 1.83 with a 7200rpm drive. Everything is is standard config.

[uicandrew]

i waffled back and forth between my setups because i know this laptop will last me at least 3 years. first i ordered the 1.83Ghz because of the 256mb video card. then i realized that the 128mb vram was good enough because i was already very content with 32mb vram on my mac mini and OS X hasn't changed (to merit the need for increased vram)

so i canceled that order and placed an order for a 1.6ghz. then i realized that since i was keeping it for a while, that i would need to future proof it as much as possible, also helping the resale value and making Vista run as smooth as possible. so i canceled my order and placed another order for a 1.8ghz.

i resolved to stop changing my configs after that. I made sure i had 2x512mb to take advantage of dual channel. and i made sure to make my hard drive 7200rpm because you can't add speed (you can add an external, but not speed)

so in the end i went from placing my order 10 minutes after the apple store came back online, unti this past friday.

zone81, good luck!

[Frans]

Sony came out today with the next Vaio XT2: it has an 11 inch screen with led-lighting, weighs 2,7 pounds, double layer DVD and 7,5 (!) hours worktime

now when will apple come up with something that can match that?

see: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/17/s...ltra-portable/

[fisherKing]

Originally Posted by Frans

Sony came out today with the next Vaio XT2: it has an 11 inch screen with led-lighting, weighs 2,7 pounds, double layer DVD and 7,5 (!) hours worktime

now when will apple come up with something that can match that?

see: http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/17/s...ltra-portable/

ugly, runs windows...but, agreed, when WILL apple give us a full-featured, top-spec'd "sub"?...
(keeping my 12" alubook until...)

[Voch]

I'll be cool with a 12"-13" MacBook Pro with specs similar to the 15" (they'll likely compromise somewhere, like take out the card slot or knock down the ethernet to 10/100...sound familiar? ). I'd buy one right away if it had very similar updates the MacBook Pro had over the G4 15" (1.67Ghz Core Duo, brighter widescreen display, SATA HD, DVD-R, Radeon X1600) and was, say, $1499-$1599.

GigE would be a nice addition as compared to the previous 12" iterations...I use mine a lot in my TiBook to shuffle files between it and my PC and would miss it.

EDIT: I know...the DVD-R isn't an "upgrade" from the previous G4...that'd be a "personal upgrade" from my current combo drive...single layer is OK for me

Voch

[aol]

I've read that the core duo in the MBP is a lower performance version of the chip than the core duo used in the iMac. Not just that it's 1.66/1.83 vs. the iMac's 2.0 GHz, but that it's actually a variant that offers less performance. Can anyone verify and/or quantify this information? Someone on this thread (I believe) used a german site to refute this claim. Asking a third way, does anyone have solid evidence one way or the other, about whether the MBP CPU is just clocked slower (1.83 vs. 2.0) than the iMac, or if indeed the CPUs in the MBP are a lower performance, lower wattage version of the core duo?

Cheers.

[SEkker]

From a posting on xlr8yourmac.com [link talks about MacBook Pro Performance Analysis from MacWorld]

http://www.craigtheguru.com/reports/...e_Analysis.php

[mduell]

Originally Posted by aol

I've read that the core duo in the MBP is a lower performance version of the chip than the core duo used in the iMac. Not just that it's 1.66/1.83 vs. the iMac's 2.0 GHz, but that it's actually a variant that offers less performance. Can anyone verify and/or quantify this information? Someone on this thread (I believe) used a german site to refute this claim. Asking a third way, does anyone have solid evidence one way or the other, about whether the MBP CPU is just clocked slower (1.83 vs. 2.0) than the iMac, or if indeed the CPUs in the MBP are a lower performance, lower wattage version of the core duo?

The 1.5 and 1.66Ghz Core Duo parts are available in both "normal" and Low Voltage (effectively lower power) parts, however the performance should be identical since the chips are otherwise identical (same functional units on the chip, same cache, same FSB, etc). As far as I can tell they're just clocked differently.
Do you have a link to the original source claiming they are lower performance parts?

[ClassicMac]

Originally Posted by z0ne81

Mine is scheduled to ship on the 7th of February. Is that cos i got my order in really early?

I also got my order in shortly after the Apple Store became available after the announcement. Mine is scheduled to ship on the 15th. It looks like if you make any changes to the configuration (I changed my RAM configuration) it moves the shipping ESTIMATE to the 15th. If you want an earlier estimate just get the standard configuration. Whether this actually significantly affects the ship date of your MBP remains to be seen.

Last time I ordered a Powerbook right after the keynote I got a shipping estimate and it shipped a little early. I am hoping it happens again this time.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell

The 1.5 and 1.66Ghz Core Duo parts are available in both "normal" and Low Voltage (effectively lower power) parts, however the performance should be identical since the chips are otherwise identical (same functional units on the chip, same cache, same FSB, etc). As far as I can tell they're just clocked differently. Do you have a link to the original source claiming they are lower performance parts?

Hmm. Interesting, but I still have some questions.

IIRC (Eug linked to a screenshot of an Intel price list some time ago, but his .Mac page is no longer online) the 1.5GHz Core Duo is only available as LV. Are you sure there's a normal voltage version of the 1.5GHz Core Duo?

And why exactly should the LV 1.67GHz Core Duo perform equal to the normal 1.67 GHz version? Is there no design difference at all? No effect on performance? Is this just some sort of special label for chips that were measured to have low leak currents or something?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon

IIRC (Eug linked to a screenshot of an Intel price list some time ago, but his .Mac page is no longer online) the 1.5GHz Core Duo is only available as LV. Are you sure there's a normal voltage version of the 1.5GHz Core Duo?

And why exactly should the LV 1.67GHz Core Duo perform equal to the normal 1.67 GHz version? Is there no design difference at all? No effect on performance? Is this just some sort of special label for chips that were measured to have low leak currents or something?

No need for screenshots, the pricelist is readily available. You're correct, 1.5Ghz Duo is LV only.

T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB) w/ Intel 945 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG - $306
L2400 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB) w/ Intel 945 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG - $381
L2300 (2M L2 cache 1.50 GHz 667 MHz FSB) w/ Intel 945 PM Chipset and Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG - $349

As far as I know the difference is just testing and binning. Some parts coming off the line are better than others.

There is a theory that some Yonah parts are auto-overclocking due to power consumption. Maybe that's what started this idea that the LV chips (which wouldn't auto-overlcock because they need to maintain low power) would perform worse than a regular chip that does auto-overclock.

[Simon]

Thanks for the link. So basically, the 1.5GHz is exclusively available as LV model. The 1.67 GHz is available as both LV and normal T series.

I have no idea where these LV rumors are coming from. Do we have any hard evidence that Apple is using LV versions? Actually, only the less expensive MBP would be affected.

[Eug Wanker]

Yup, if Apple is using a 1.83 GHz Yonah, it is not LV, considering there is no 1.83 LV at the moment.

BTW, rumour has it that the 1.83 Core Duo T2400 (non-LV) is over 30 Watts for TDP, but nowhere near the 49 Watts of the 2.16 GHz T2600 (non-LV).

ie. At max, Core Duo is a relatively hot laptop chip by PowerBook G4 standards, but the benefit is that it's much, much, much faster. It also has better power saving features apparently for times of low usage. So while battery life on Core Duo won't be much better on the 15" MacBook Pro compared to the PowerBooks (and may even be worse), during that time you'll get more work done (unless you're just surfing MacNN like us ).

[urrl78]

It's probably already been mentioned, the thread is too long for me to check; those of you who are grumbling how this here new "Mac-whatever" Powerbook won't handle PC slots for Verizon/Sprint Broadband cards...shouldn't these here cards fit?

http://www.sierrawireless.com/Produc...s_minicard.asp

Looks like Steve J. knew what he was doin' after all there...Think I'll take mine in HSDPA flavor.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

BTW, rumour has it that the 1.83 Core Duo T2400 (non-LV) is over 30 Watts for TDP, but nowhere near the 49 Watts of the 2.16 GHz T2600 (non-LV).

Even Intel says they're all over 30W TDP... 31W for 1.66 - 2.16 Ghz.
Do you have a link to the rumor about the 2.16 burning 49W?

[spiff72]

Originally Posted by urrl78

It's probably already been mentioned, the thread is too long for me to check; those of you who are grumbling how this here new "Mac-whatever" Powerbook won't handle PC slots for Verizon/Sprint Broadband cards...shouldn't these here cards fit?

http://www.sierrawireless.com/Produc...s_minicard.asp

Looks like Steve J. knew what he was doin' after all there...Think I'll take mine in HSDPA flavor.

I think that link is pointed to internal PCI express cards. These won't fit in the external slot.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by urrl78

It's probably already been mentioned, the thread is too long for me to check; those of you who are grumbling how this here new "Mac-whatever" Powerbook won't handle PC slots for Verizon/Sprint Broadband cards...shouldn't these here cards fit?

http://www.sierrawireless.com/Produc...s_minicard.asp

Those are PCI Express cards, not ExpressCard/34 cards.

They are for the internal slots on a desktop computer.


PCI Express is to ExpressCard/34 as PCI is to PCMCIA/CardBus.

[urrl78]

Actually that link specifies them being used in Lenovo laptops, But I get the difference in cards, thanks.

[Nate LFE]

Lovely... Apple said during its earnings report that it may not be able to meet demand for the MacBook.

[TailsToo]

when was the last time they could meet demand for a new portable product?

[milhous]

those who say that the new mac book pro name stinks, i'm with you, it really does.

i didn't get a chance to read through all the posts so i might be redundant in saying this. but jobs said at the keynote that he wanted to get away from using 'power-' because of it's association ppc processors.

quite untrue. what do you call apple's pre-powerpc laptops that had 68k CISC processors in them?!

i rest my case

[Simon]

This is all gonna be just speculation, so fell free to skip if you're not into it.

Let's assume Apple is using normal T2xxx Yonahs for both MBPs and let's assume they have roughly similar TDP compared to the 1.67GHz 7447b. We know they increased battery capacity from 50Wh to 60Wh. This might have been to make up for the increased power draw due to the higher intensity backlight. If that were the case battery life might be similar.

Keep in mind how big the MBP's battery is, it's about as huge as the 17" PB's. Now, if Apple actually introduces a 13" MBP, the screen will draw roughly 30% less power due to the size decrease. OTOH the battery will probably be about half the size due to space constraints. There is no way they will fit that big 60Wh battery in a 13" MBP. So, could this indicate that if Apple introduces a 13" MBP with a Core Duo it's going to be a L2xxx Yonah, possibly the L2400? That would actually mean Apple would be putting the most expensive Yonah version into its least expensive MBP.

[Chuckit]

Or the 13" will simply not use the same screen as the 15".

[SEkker]

I think Apple is going to merge the needs of the PB12" with those of the iBook.

The next model would be a single 13" widescreen machine, using a lower power consumption single core Yonah that Intel is developing for the 'subnotebook' market. That machine would be expected to have the battery life of some recent Centrino machines, 4-6+ hours, and would not compete in the professional space with the MacBook Pro.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by SEkker

I think Apple is going to merge the needs of the PB12" with those of the iBook.

The next model would be a single 13" widescreen machine, using a lower power consumption single core Yonah that Intel is developing for the 'subnotebook' market. That machine would be expected to have the battery life of some recent Centrino machines, 4-6+ hours, and would not compete in the professional space with the MacBook Pro.

There will have to be a compromise of such a machine against the MacBook Pro not unlike the 12" G4 PowerBook vs. the 15" model of the same generation (slower video, slower ethernet, less RAM capacity). Otherwise, no one would buy a MacBook Pro over such a machine (which is what Apple wants).

I'm hoping it's got a Core Duo processor and X1600 video but just compromises in a feature I don't care too much about (ExpressCard 34 slot, *maybe* slower ethernet but I want my GigE, single RAM slot but a way I can still get 1.5GB total). Then I'll buy it instead of the MacBook Pro.

Voch

[Simon]

Originally Posted by SEkker

I think Apple is going to merge the needs of the PB12" with those of the iBook.
The next model would be a single 13" widescreen machine, using a lower power consumption single core Yonah that Intel is developing for the 'subnotebook' market. That machine would be expected to have the battery life of some recent Centrino machines, 4-6+ hours, and would not compete in the professional space with the MacBook Pro.

I have been suggesting that Apple could make such a move for quite some time already, but up to now, I haven't seen anybody on this board really agree. To a certain extent it's probably because it's not what a lot of people want to see happen, but IMHO it's very realistic for what probably will happen.

If Apple takes a Core Solo T1300, puts it in a 13" widescreen MacBook and starts at $999 it will be able to cater to the low-end segment well. This thing could probably offer up to 4h of battery lifetime - dim the screen, turn of AP and you're up to 5h.

If Apple then adds DVI output it's already better off than the current 12" PowerBook - no matter what PCIe Mobility Radeon they use. So, now allow people to BTO a SuperDrive, a 100GB HDD, double the VRAM to 128MB, Gigabit Ethernet, etc. That brings the price up to max. $1699 closing the gap between the low-end and the MBP.

• That gives users that want decent power in a small package something to buy
• It caters to schools and students on the low-end
• The MBP's additional $300 price tag is perfectly justified by the larger screen and Express/34 slot
• Apple doesn't have to cripple anything to make the MBP look better
• The MB and MBP do not compete with each other directly

Folks, I know many of you don't want this to happen because many of you want a MBP in the 12" PowerBook's case, but that's wishful thinking at best. It has never happened in the past (even if just for marketing reasons) and it's probably not going to happen now (when Apple is increasing battery capacity for the MBP). I'm pretty certain something along these lines is going to happen in March/April. In Apple's POV, why not?

[Voch]

I'm hoping Apple covers BOTH bases with a MacBook (Core Solo) and a MacBook Pro (Core Duo) in a 13" form factor for $999 and $1499-$1599 respectively. That would make sense based on the previous iBook/PowerBook lineups but you never know.

Voch

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

This is all gonna be just speculation, so fell free to skip if you're not into it.

Let's assume Apple is using normal T2xxx Yonahs for both MBPs and let's assume they have roughly similar TDP compared to the 1.67GHz 7447b. We know they increased battery capacity from 50Wh to 60Wh. This might have been to make up for the increased power draw due to the higher intensity backlight. If that were the case battery life might be similar.

Keep in mind how big the MBP's battery is, it's about as huge as the 17" PB's. Now, if Apple actually introduces a 13" MBP, the screen will draw roughly 30% less power due to the size decrease. OTOH the battery will probably be about half the size due to space constraints. There is no way they will fit that big 60Wh battery in a 13" MBP. So, could this indicate that if Apple introduces a 13" MBP with a Core Duo it's going to be a L2xxx Yonah, possibly the L2400? That would actually mean Apple would be putting the most expensive Yonah version into its least expensive MBP.

That's why I was arguing Apple would use the single-core Yonah T1300 1.67 GHz in the 13" MacBook Pro, and Celeron Yonah in the iBooks/MacBooks.

Originally Posted by Simon

I have been suggesting that Apple could make such a move for quite some time already, but up to now, I haven't seen anybody on this board really agree. To a certain extent it's probably because it's not what a lot of people want to see happen, but IMHO it's very realistic for what probably will happen.

Well, it's Apple's loss then.

If Apple sells a 13" 1280x800 T1300 iBook with Radeon X1300 64-128 MB DVI and SuperDrive for $999, I would be all over it. However, that seems rather unlikely. Even at $1199 that seems unlikely.

If that machine is a MacBook Pro at $1499, I will still probably buy it.

The question is how many people there are like me. If not many, then the loss for Apple is not great.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Simon

If Apple then adds DVI output it's already better off than the current 12" PowerBook - no matter what PCIe Mobility Radeon they use.

Why is that? The 12" powerbook has DVI.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally Posted by Icruise

Why is that? The 12" powerbook has DVI.

not quite, it had MINI DVI. not full-size DVI. which means you gotta use a damn adapter.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY

not quite, it had MINI DVI. not full-size DVI. which means you gotta use a damn adapter.

For a 12" or 13", mini-DVI is reasonable.

[foo2]

Why? There's physical space for DVI. Why accept miniDVI? One can always carry a DVI->VGA adapter for going to VGA, but why not just put DVI on there to begin with?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by foo2

Why? There's physical space for DVI. Why accept miniDVI? One can always carry a DVI->VGA adapter for going to VGA, but why not just put DVI on there to begin with?

Which 'book are you talking about?

The only 'book with a mini-DVI so far is the 12" Powerbook, and there most definitely is NO space for a full-size DVI connector on that. Anybody who claims otherwise has never seen the inside of one.

Everything else is complete speculation.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

For a 12" or 13", mini-DVI is reasonable.

no, it isn't. nor is it acceptable on an iMac or anything else except something like a PSP where a DVI port obviously wouldn't fit well.

[Eug Wanker]

I am not surprised at all that the iMac doesn't have a full-sized DVI port, for reasons of customer usage, cost, and aesthetics.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY

no, it isn't. nor is it acceptable on an iMac or anything else except something like a PSP where a DVI port obviously wouldn't fit well.

You may have a point on the iMac, but the 12" books are CRAMPED. There is no way of fitting a full-size DVI on there. None.

[MORT A POTTY]

no, it's not aesthetics. the ports are in the back and along the bottom. nothing is sexy about that at all. cost I don't really believe either. and customer usage is because it's not a full size port and because till now, you couldn't do extended desktop w/ the iMac.

and analogika: sure there is, take out that useless modem.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Icruise

Why is that? The 12" powerbook has DVI.

Actually it has mini DVI, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I wanted to say that a T1300 on 667MHz bus with a PCIe GPU will blow the socks off a 12" PowerBook - even if it's 'just' a replacement for the iBook. In the past if you needed DVI or external spanning, you had to go for the PowerBook. If the iBook had DVI, hardly anybody could justify spending the additional $$$ just for a nice Al case.