Apple has so far only said it would take photos. It could in theory take video since the CPU is probably fast for a phone, but you may be forced into taking MPEG-4 clips. I can't imagine live H.264 encoding is realistic.
A Mobility Radeon HD 2600 (since the desktop equivalent will be called the Radeon HD 2600, I suspect it'll apply to the mobile equivalent), or else a GeForce Go 8600.
We know the latter, at the very least, should be ready by May. And AMD (i.e. ATI) has already put out a one-off part called the X2300, so we know they've been readying their next-generation mobile chips for awhile.
Me? I'm just hoping they add a dedicated graphics option somewhere in the regular...
That wouldn't work, because the bus speed of Intel's "Santa Rosa" architecture (which you need for the X3000) wouldn't allow for a 2.13GHz (or rather, 2.16GHz) chip. I also wonder how readily Apple can step up the low end's CPU, RAM, hard drive, and optical drive all in one shot. My guesses:2GHz: Combo drive
* 1GB of memory
* 80GB hard drive
* Combo drive
* X3000 graphics2.2GHz: Superdrive
* 1GB of memory
* 120GB hard drive
* X3000 graphics
And I'm still...
Rogers was obviously weaseling its way out of a definite answer here. They didn't say they wouldn't have the iPhone (not even hinting at a delay), but they didn't commit to it either.
In short: they don't want to get people's hopes up too far in advance.
But yes, Rogers desperately needs to rethink its data plans. They want to offer HSDPA but their phone plans are completely backwards: it only costs you $5-10 more to chew up massive bandwidth on video calls, but...
Assuming this is indicative of a line change (and it might not be), I'd be more inclined to suggest that Apple will simply bump the capacities down in price: the 4GB model sells for $149, while the 8GB model sells for $199. Apple may want to leave the $249 level to the video iPod (hopefully with a bump to 40GB) - everyone already knows that the full-size iPod outsells any of the 8GB nanos at the same price level.
I'd love a larger-capacity nano, but 16GB is likely...
No they didn't - AI just links to an Electronista article. An extra click maybe, but SA is known to periodically block unregistered access to the forums. Wouldn't want people to be taken to a "LOL SIGN UP PLZ" link.
My quick call on specs:
1GB of RAM
Intel GMA X3000 graphics
DVD/CD-RW Combo drive
No Bluetooth or Front Row remote
1GB of RAM
256MB ATI X2600 graphics
Bluetooth + Front Row
2GB of RAM
256MB GeForce 8500 GT grpahics
Bluetooth +Front Row
And before you think the prices are crazy: display prices are coming down, memory prices are coming down, and the next-gen graphics should cost somewhere in...
Again, the MacBook Pro wouldn't stay still. Remember, the current $1499 MacBook has the same 120GB hard drive as its Pro equivalent. If the base MBP gets a larger drive, there's nothing wrong with the high-end MacBook getting the same drive. And 15.4-inch screens aren't that expensive -- especially not if Apple decides just to launch a 1280x800 screen instead (though I would rather have a 1440x900 screen with the 15-inch MBP getting 1680x1050).Also, the choice of...
I think you went too far in the other direction -- why would Apple go from hovering around 160-200MHz between the mainstream and pro lines and suddenly jump to a massive 600MHz gap? With optical drives that cost several hundred dollars all by themselves? I don't think you're quite aware of component pricing.
Besides, it's not like the MacBook Pro has to either become a supercomputer or else stay perfectly still. I'd guess the base MacBook Pro would resemble this:
I know predictions have already made the rounds, but it might be nice to consolidate them in one thread as we get closer to the (likely) launch window.
I'll start with my own. I see Apple starting to treat the MacBook line more as it does the iMac, i.e. that you can't just offer one basic size and feature set. I don't expect four different models, but I can imagine Apple using the rumored