Briefly: Intel Mac mini in production; iBooks due at later date

[AppleInsider]

At a special media event to be held on its campus next week, Apple Computer will unveil a new line of low-cost Intel-based Mac mini desktop computers but will not debut its next-generation iBook consumer notebooks, AppleInsider has learned.

According to reports from a variety of sources, Apple this week released the Intel Mac mini design to its manufacturing partners in the Far East, which are currently ramping production of the compact computers in an effort to build an initial inventory stockpile.

Based on this information, it would appear that there will be at least some availability of the systems immediately following their announcement next Tuesday.

One the other hand, Apple's Intel-based iBooks are not expected to make an appearance at the event -- they remain on target for an introduction at a later date this Spring.

The Feb. 28th Apple event is also expected to deliver some "fun products," the company teased in an invitation sent to analyst and members of the media last week.

One such product is believed to be the iPod Boombox, a radical new approach to traditional Boombox systems that will reportedly retail in excess of $300.

The device is believed to be just one of several iPod companion products that have been under development by the company's iPod division.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[tensdanny38]

I guess I am not too upset over this. Assuming they are announced on April 1st shipping end of April, I suspect you will see a 1.67 core duo in them since the price will have dropped 18-40% on the chip according to Intel. The MacBook Pro's will also get a speedbump(one processor faster in Intel's multiple clockspeed attack) on the day the iBooks are announced, since the 2.33ghz Yonah Core Duo will be out by then.

That is good news for anyone looking to buy an iBook.

If they did this, the Macbook pro would still be about 30% faster at max usage then the iBook.

30% speed seems like a big enough difference, no?

[Robin Hood]

A big differentiating fact will also be the graphic card. While the MacBook Pro includes a high end graphic card, the iBook (or its replacement) as well as the new Mac mini will ship with Intel integrated graphics.

[ibook911]

Originally posted by tensdanny38
I guess I am not too upset over this. Assuming they are announced on April 1st shipping end of April, I suspect you will see a 1.67 core duo in them since the price will have dropped 18-40% on the chip according to Intel. The MacBook Pro's will also get a speedbump(one processor faster in Intel's multiple clockspeed attack) on the day the iBooks are announced, since the 2.33ghz Yonah Core Duo will be out by then.

That is good news for anyone looking to buy an iBook.

If they did this, the Macbook pro would still be about 30% faster at max usage then the iBook.

30% speed seems like a big enough difference, no?

Considering Apple is still not coming anywhere to meeting demand on Mac Book Pro. I somehow doubt they'll speed bump in 1 month. Still, I think indeed the iBook will get a 1.67 Duo once it is announced.


What do you guys think about the Mac Mini intel? I think it is too inexpensive to have a Yonah processor. I think it will have a Celeron or maybe a Yonah Solo IF they get a very special price on them.

The boombox must really be something special or they wouldn't bother. I wonder what its catch features could be?

[Wings]

Originally posted by Robin Hood
A big differentiating fact will also be the graphic card. While the MacBook Pro includes a high end graphic card, the iBook (or its replacement) as well as the new Mac mini will ship with Intel integrated graphics.

Apple will never have Intel Integrated Graphics in anything they sell.

[ryanh]

Originally posted by Robin Hood
A big differentiating fact will also be the graphic card. While the MacBook Pro includes a high end graphic card, the iBook (or its replacement) as well as the new Mac mini will ship with Intel integrated graphics.

No. Apple will not use integrated graphics. Maybe in the minis, but I'm still guessing they won't. There will definitely be a seperate GPU in the iBook/MacBook.

Apple prides themselves on a robust yet intuitive GUI utilizing Expose as well as Dashboard. Not to mention real-time video resizing which utilizes Core Image. While newer integrated GPU's could handle this, it is not ideal. Apple wants to show that the switch to Intel is bringing new life into Apple products that are incredibly long in the tooth. Using integrated graphics is even a step back from the current 9200's in some ways.

The new consumer level portables and the minis could easily use an ATI 9600 or even an X300. Integrated graphics are doubtful, in my mind.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by Wings
Apple will never have Intel Integrated Graphics in anything they sell.

Why not, if it works and is cheap?

BEFORE YOU BASH: Think low end laptop, 1024.768, would you rather have an antiquated chip like the radion 9000 or an intel integrated chip that is at least as fast or maybe faster at a cost savings?


$999 for an iBook with 9200 or $949 for the same thing with intel integrated? I can tell you what most would buy...

[tensdanny38]

Macbook Pro's are going to upgrade to the x1800 in April or soon after. They wanted to have it in there all along!!


iBooks will the the x1300. Guaranteed!

[a_greer]

Whatever they use, it had better be Core* compatible! I want my dashboard ripples damnit

[ryanh]

Originally posted by tensdanny38
Macbook Pro's are going to upgrade to the x1800 in April or soon after. They wanted to have it in there all along!!


iBooks will the the x1300. Guaranteed!

April? Way too soon. Try maybe WWDC.

But I agree about the low end stuff. Economically, an integrated chipset doesn't save much money over buying a large allotment of mid-range GPUs from ATI or Nvidia. It does save some, but not a lot. I do believe that Apple entered into a relatively good purchasing agreement with ATI a while ago, but I'm not sure of the details of it or if it still exists.

The one area where I can see an integrated GPU being worthwhile is battery life. If Apple wants to create just a small, road warrior [sub-?] notebook with ~8 hour battery life, an integrated chipset would probably be the way to go.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by ryanh
...with ~8 hour battery life, an integrated chipset would probably be the way to go.

8 hour battery life?!?!? Using a bewolf cluster of batteries aye?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by tensdanny38
The MacBook Pro's will also get a speedbump(one processor faster in Intel's multiple clockspeed attack) on the day the iBooks are announced, since the 2.33ghz Yonah Core Duo will be out by then.

That seems highly improbable. That would mean:
1. MacBook Pro announcement. A few weeks later...
2. MacBook Pro speedbump before shipping. A few weeks later...
3. MacBook Pro shipping. A few weeks later...
4. Another MacBook Pro speed bump.

[Zenga]

[ryanh]

Originally posted by a_greer
8 hour battery life?!?!? Using a bewolf cluster of batteries aye?

Ye of little faith. It is definitely possible using a low power processor like the Centrino and a small, low power screen [think 10-13"]. I said a road-warrior like notebook. Sony already has something similar to this out that gets around 6.5-7 hours battery life under real world use. It's very possible. I don't think Apple will do this [at least not yet], but it is definitely possible using current technology

[Robin Hood]

It is easy to discount Intel integrated graphics, especially because in the past they sucked. Really really badly. The newest chipsets from Intel are, however, quite impressive. Some advantages include, but are not limited to:

1. Low power draw, means long battery life
2. Inexpensive, means more competitive with Dell (yes, that is important!)
3. Takes advantage of "free" Intel R&D, again lower cost and more competitive with other brands
4. Actually very powerful. Intel's latest integrated graphics chipsets are quite fast, and would more than suffice for entry level hardware.

Now if you want to use Motion, or play Doom 3, integrated graphics will not be for you. But to be honest, if you are going to do that, you're not going to buy a $999 ~ laptop or $499 ~ desktop.

[Robin Hood]

Remember that Apple's Intel "devkit" had Intel integrated graphics, and judging by reports, it was pretty spiffy.

Checked Dell.com lately? Most of their computers feature integrated graphics, even quite expensive laptops in the $1500+ range.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally posted by a_greer
Why not, if it works and is cheap?

BEFORE YOU BASH: Think low end laptop, 1024.768, would you rather have an antiquated chip like the radion 9000 or an intel integrated chip that is at least as fast or maybe faster at a cost savings?


$999 for an iBook with 9200 or $949 for the same thing with intel integrated? I can tell you what most would buy...

Quartz Extreme and 2D Extreme will be standard moving forward.

They will need their own dedicate GPU.

[a_greer]

Originally posted by ryanh
Ye of little faith. It is definitely possible using a low power processor like the Centrino

Centrino is not a chip, but a combination of a single core or dual core penium M (now called core solo and core duo respectivly) with a select Intel main boards and Intel 102.11g/b(and sometimes a) chips.

Centrino is a checklist of features, not a single chip or proc family

[booisgolden]

okay, i'm probably going to get massively pelted for this, but i really don't care about the mini that much (unless, of course, it's the pie-in-the-sky "tivo killer") -- i've been limping along with my friend's ancient 12" ibook for over a month now bc my 14" ibook bit the dust, and i cancelled my macbookpro order when i heard that the macbook would be released soon. i am an ibook gal, after all.

bring on the macbooks already, wouldya? ;-) pretty please?

[satchmo]

I wonder if this "boombox" is going to be JVC-like or more high end Bang & Olufsen.
Here's hoping for the latter with built in wireless and wall mountable.

[gar]

Originally posted by satchmo
I wonder if this "boombox" is going to be JVC-like or more high end Bang & Olufsen.
Here's hoping for the latter with built in wireless and wall mountable.

I hope not. Too much form over function.

btw According to my audio/video-hardware pusher, high-end and Bang & Olufsen aren't the same.
Although he is a B&O dealer he said the quality is mediocore at best, these days.

I prefer something iPod-like.

[b3nj]

Originally posted by gar
I hope not. Too much form over function.

err... we are still talking about Apple, right?

[walshbj]

I've read repeatedly that there won't be a 12" MBP at all. Do the people saying that mean there won't be any "small" mbp? Or that there will be a 13" instead?

I got my hands on a MBP yesterday, it was much bigger than I expected, because of the wide screen. Having seen how big it is I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't make one in a smaller form factor.

I still think new lappies could be announced Tuesday. Rumour sites were reporting NO VIDEO IPOD until the last minute back in October. They were wrong.

[Robin Hood]

Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Quartz Extreme and 2D Extreme will be standard moving forward.

They will need their own dedicate GPU.

Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1617350,00.asp

As I have said, Intel integrated graphics used to suck. Full stop. That is, however, changing. Obviously for high end applications, like the latest games or pro apps like Motion (note that Photoshop actually does not use the GPU, so that doesn't include all pro apps), a high end graphics card is still a must.

But for entry level hardware, there is little reason to not look seriously at integrated graphics at this point.

As far as "will need their own dedicated GPU", Intel does provide that, though it is (granted) a less powerful one compared to the latest graphics card, and it does not have its own dedicated video memory, but that doesn't mean it won't run Quartz Extreme or 2D Extreme.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by ryanh
Ye of little faith. It is definitely possible using a low power processor like the Centrino

Centrino is not a processor. It's a platform, encompassing Intel-branded processors, chipsets and graphics card (usually integrated).

A low-power, low-voltage 1.5 Pentim M would probably give you about 8 hours of battery life, provided the battery is a high-capacity one. Single core, 32-bit. 8)

[Robin Hood]

Again, I would like to stress that even though Intel's Integrated Graphics no longer suck as badly as it used to, this is obviously still a low end solution, and would ONLY be seen in entry level products. For example, a Mac mini around $500 with a 1.67 GHz Core Duo and Integrated Graphics (like GMA900) would be an impressive machine. At the same time, it won't be a gaming or video editing machine.

I guess Apple could also come out with different versions of the Mac mini, the cheapest one coming with integrated graphics, with a more expensive version that has a higher end GPU.

[Gene Clean]

I doubt a $500 Mac mini will have a Core Duo, unless Apple has bit the bullet and is ready to bleed money for the sake of marketshare.

[Robin Hood]

Who knows; after all, the Core Solo isn't that much cheaper.

[mynamehere]

Originally posted by Robin Hood
Remember that Apple's Intel "devkit" had Intel integrated graphics, and judging by reports, it was pretty spiffy.

Checked Dell.com lately? Most of their computers feature integrated graphics, even quite expensive laptops in the $1500+ range.

They also had Pentium 4's, didn't they?

Besides, when has Dell ever been associated with quality? Expensive != Quality

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I doubt a $500 Mac mini will have a Core Duo, unless Apple has bit the bullet and is ready to bleed money for the sake of marketshare.

That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Robin Hood
Who knows; after all, the Core Solo isn't that much cheaper.

Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by a_greer
8 hour battery life?!?!? Using a bewolf cluster of batteries aye?

If you look at the 3lb portables from Sony and others, they use the ULV processors and integrated graphics, and claim 7-8 hours battery life. They aren't high performance in terms of how fast they get something done, but there are people that are willing to trade it for lower weight and better battery performance.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").

No, selling at a loss and make it up for volume isn't going to work for this business model, because that too often translates to volume losses if the volumes aren't enough to help them push costs down enough. What smart companies sometimes do is reduce their margins a bit, still make a profit per unit but make it up in volume.

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.

It is a huge amount for the base unit but not so bad for a fully decked-out mini. A BTO upgrade to Duo could be pretty lucrative for Apple, double the processors for only $100 when their actual costs would be a very tiny fraction of that, with plenty of margin to take to the bank.

[JeffDM]

Originally posted by mynamehere
They also had Pentium 4's, didn't they?

The development systems were P4 based, and I think the stock units had integrated graphics. Supposedly one of the updates did allow certain graphics upgrades though.

The P4 chips get ragged on a lot but they are actually pretty good chips, the biggest downside was their power draw.

[ryanh]

Originally posted by JeffDM
A BTO upgrade to Duo could be pretty lucrative for Apple, double the processors for only $100 when their actual costs would be a very small fraction of that, with plenty of margin to take to the bank.

That actually makes a lot of sense. Seemingly getting "twice" the computer for only another hundred bucks and landing Apple almost $100 extra net gain on each mini sold with the upgrade. The upgrade would be very appealing to consumers by thinking they are getting a huge gain for a small price as well as to power users who understand they are getting soaked a little bit but want the power in a very compact desktop.

[1984]

If Apple were to upgrade the MacBook Pro when they announce the MacBook they would probably just boost the BTO model from 2.16 to 2.33 GHz. However, I think they would more likely reserve the 2.33 GHz processor for the 17" model.

[shanmugam]

integrated graphics - MacBook - less than $999???

i guess apple will keep the price points and include 64/128 MB low end graphic card ...

MacBook Pro has 256MB BTO VRAM, means apple not going to compromise price point and quality ...

then again we could see cheap cheap MacBook for $799 - is it not competitor to Mac Mini? (Without screen)?

i totally disagree with the integrated graphics idea - some the PC vendor save small money may be 20 - 50 bucks ??? (in large quantities i mean) with lots of performance degrade ...

IMHO personally i do not like integrated graphics in any Mac.

[tubgirl]

Originally posted by a_greer
$999 for an iBook with 9200 or $949 for the same thing with intel integrated? I can tell you what most would buy...

i wouldn't buy either for more than $700..

Originally posted by Robin Hood
For example, a Mac mini around $500 with a 1.67 GHz Core Duo and Integrated Graphics (like GMA900) would be an impressive machine.

steve: "behold the new mac mini, up to 4 times faster! *cough* except gfx-performance which will be only half as fast...*cough*"

i dont really see how you guys can agrue that apple should pair a $200 cpu with a 'almost-free gpu'...?

a x300 or-something shared memory gpu would be a tiny bit more expensive, but would (at least) match the performance of what it's supposed to be an improvement of.

[shanmugam]

48 hours to go!

[DHagan4755]

Whatever the specs are for the Mac mini...those specs will give us a good idea of what the specs on the new iBook (MacBook) will be.