Apple MacBook Pro Thin (i assume)

izzi1234

i'm going to university next year yet want to get a new laptop for my photography (ps cs2 and 40mb computers on my old dell aern't cutting it)



So, i've heard the rumor of a thin pro macbook around 13"



But i want to know would be it as powerful as macbook pro (15) but smaller and is it worth the wait



(i'm guessing they will come out at SF in January)

commodus

I doubt it would be as powerful -- especially not since it might need a low-voltage Core 2 to get strong battery life.



Also, don't be surprised if there's no integrated optical drive, unless Apple can make even the VAIO TZ seem thick.

tinkerer

Best answer:



Ignore any and all rumors. Just look at what they have to sell you when you're ready to buy.



If they come out with something groundbreaking within 14 days of your purchase, you can always return what you got.

killerapp

Why is Sony able to make all those tiny VAIO computers, that weigh hardly anything yet powerful enough to even load and run Windoze bloatware? What is Apple missing?

dhagan4755

I was thinking the other day about how silly Apple is to try to make a notebook impossibly thin. But then I thought what's the problem with having it as thin as possible? I think the reason Apple's not come out with this laptop yet is because they are still trying to perfect it. In the grand scheme of things, they really haven't had as much time engineering Intel's chips as Sony has. And also, I think a lot of the stuff that Apple is working on has Leopard in mind.

flinch13

Tinkerer is wise beyond his years... just buy when you need to, return if something better comes out within the return period. There have been rumors about Apple subnotebooks for years. They are no more likely to release one this year than in previous years. I'd love a tiny notebook from Apple, but I wouldn't want them to put it out before it was ready; that'd just be a bad product. Right now no one knows if such a product is coming, so don't hold your breath.

bmwintoxication

if you are doing photography.... screen size is more impoartant.

kennywrx

Quote:

Originally Posted by izzi1234


i'm going to university next year yet want to get a new laptop for my photography (ps cs2 and 40mb computers on my old dell aern't cutting it)



So, i've heard the rumor of a thin pro macbook around 13"



But i want to know would be it as powerful as macbook pro (15) but smaller and is it worth the wait



(i'm guessing they will come out at SF in January)

How is the MBP that much powerful than the the MB? If you mean the GPU, I dont think we'll be seeing a thin 13.3" with MBP level of graphic power anytime soon. The CPU is out as well as it's only a matter of time before the the MB gets updated to Santa Rosa w/800Mhz FSB CPUs. IMO... there is no need for another 13.3" notebook, but rather cheaper 15" and 17" models.

idave

Quote:

Originally Posted by KennyWRX


IMO... there is no need for another 13.3" notebook, but rather cheaper 15" and 17" models.

With a narrower bezel around the screen, a new 13" portable could be slightly smaller and lighter. With low power CPUs, it could be thinner, cooler and have better batter life. I think these are the things that are needed since the 12" PowerBook was discontinued. A lot of people aren't satisfied with a portable that weighs five pounds and is too hot to use on your lap.

kennywrx

Quote:

Originally Posted by iDave


With a narrower bezel around the screen, a new 13" portable could be slightly smaller and lighter. With low power CPUs, it could be thinner, cooler and have better batter life. I think these are the things that are needed since the 12" PowerBook was discontinued. A lot of people aren't satisfied with a portable that weighs five pounds and is too hot to use on your lap.

That's cool, but as long as it is a 13.3" I think it should be incorporated in the current MB line and not added as a completely new model such as "MBP Thin".



I don't know about the low power CPU's... do you mean the LV or ULV CPUs? If so I disagree... those would go nice in a 11" notebook which, in this case, would then deserve a new spot in the lineup... MB Mini.

dhagan4755

Quote:

Originally Posted by KennyWRX


I think it should be incorporated in the current MB line and not added as a completely new model such as "MBP Thin".

Totally agreed. Marketing may lean towards differentiating it by name, but I think that would do it a big disservice.

mcarling

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMWintoxication


if you are doing photography.... screen size is more impoartant.

For photography, screen resolution is much more important than screen size.

karelia

If anything we need a bigger MacBook, not a smaller MacBook Pro. Compare the market for a subnotebook against that of people with trouble seeing a small screen like the 13.3" MacBook, and you'll see my point. Because for every rich, young buck that wants an ultra-classy mini-laptop, there's two retirees that want a Mac for the simplicity, and those retirees often need larger screens just to read.

kenaustus

You may find that a MB connected to a larger 23"?) display in your dorm room is a better solution than trying to get an all in one doit all computer.



I've used a PB with a 232" display and it is glorious for both working on a lot of windows at one time and for working on photos.



Screen size is important in a lot of situations, but I would hate to drag a 17" MBP around - the 15" was bad enough for me, weight wise.

mzaslove

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenaustus


I've used a PB with a 232" display and it is glorious for both working on a lot of windows at one time and for working on photos.

I too have used a PB with those wonderful Apple 232" displays; the problem was finding a dorm room big enough to put it in.



But, seriously, I agree that a PB with a second display will do quite a bit. I rough cut a feature film on just that situation -- surprising what you can do.

the placid casual

Vaio FZ11E

Acer Aspire 5920

Dell XPS m1330



All c2d machines with a more robust Geforce 8400 GS+ cards or better, all for cheaper than the MacBook, but approaching in some cases MBP performace...



Form factors all very well designed, and nearly as small as Apple machines...



Apple needs to up it's game imho.

jeffdm

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerapp


Why is Sony able to make all those tiny VAIO computers, that weigh hardly anything yet powerful enough to even load and run Windoze bloatware? What is Apple missing?

Those generally use the LV or ULV chips, which run about 40% slower than the standard T series mobile chips. Sometimes (but not all the time) they drop the optical drive too, but that's not necessary to do to get a thin & light ultraportable. I think Sony's TX is 2.75 lb. Apple seems to like being the thinnest of a given category, though they don't seem to want to be in the ultraportable category at all.



I would expect an Apple ultraportable to be the same price as their basic Mac Book Pro, assuming they ever make one.

shanmugam

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM


Those generally use the LV or ULV chips, which run about 40% slower than the standard T series mobile chips. Sometimes (but not all the time) they drop the optical drive too, but that's not necessary to do to get a thin & light ultraportable. I think Sony's TX is 2.75 lb. Apple seems to like being the thinnest of a given category, though they don't seem to want to be in the ultraportable category at all.



I would expect an Apple ultraportable to be the same price as their basic Mac Book Pro, assuming they ever make one.

how slow is 1.8" HDDs? (the ones used in iPod) i guess 3600 RPM, is it real big hit in performance?

jeffdm

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanmugam


how slow is 1.8" HDDs? (the ones used in iPod) i guess 3600 RPM, is it real big hit in performance?

I think they are kind of slow. I forget specific speed numbers, but it could be 50 to 60% the speed of 2.5" drives. The current ones probably could beat my current notebook drive though.

mrtotes

Quote:

Originally Posted by shanmugam


how slow is 1.8" HDDs? (the ones used in iPod) i guess 3600 RPM, is it real big hit in performance?

The 160GB ones in the iPod Classic are probably theses at 3,600rpm

http://www.biztoolbelt.com/2007/09/t...8inch_hdd.html



But there are smaller capacity 4,200rpm drives out there.

http://www.span.com/catalog/product_...ducts_id=13828



My guess it that with a reasonable amount of flash (16/32GB - any more costs too much) the speed of the hard disk versus it's small size would be a reasonable trade-off.