New MacBooks offer marginal speed improvements (benchmarks)

[AppleInsider]

New 13-inch MacBook notebooks quietly introduced by Apple on Thursday offer up to a 10 percent performance increase on some tasks over their predecessors, official company benchmarks show.

Earlier this month, Apple ran performance tests on a pre-production 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook and then compared the results to those of its original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook introduced last year.

A similar series of tests were performed by the Cupertino-based company back in April on its 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo–based MacBook (introduced in May), the results of which were similarly compared to the original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook.

In an iPhoto common application task -- which involves importing 100 photos into an existing iPhoto library containing 2000 photos and then exporting those photos as a web page, a movie file, and preparing them for iDVD -- the new 2.2GHz MacBook was 35 percent faster than the original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo model, while the 2.16GHz MacBook introduced in May was just 25 percent faster.

A similar iTunes application test -- which measures the speed of importing a song from the hard drive to the iTunes library, encoding a video clip for iPod, and encoding 60 minutes of music and burning it to a CD -- showed the new 2.2GHz MacBook to have a 6 percent edge over previous-generation 2.16GHz MacBook.

Apple's new 2.2GHz MacBook vs. original 2.0GHz MacBook Core Duo

Apple's 2.16GHz MacBook vs. original 2.0GHz MacBook Core Duo

Apple also tested the new 2.2GHz MacBook under several other iLife applications, but altered those tests since April, making any comparison inconclusive. It should also be noted that iLife itself has been upgraded since both previous benchmarks were conducted, though Apple made no mention of this fact in its test results.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[amac4me]

Nice ... these things will sell like hotcakes this holiday season.

[Fishyesque]

I'm still waiting for a redesign :P

[hmurchison]

Since we're talking about the same processor family the speed differences are pretty easy to ascertain. You have clockspeed and a FSB advantage.

What's important is finding out how much faster and more full featured the GMA X3100 chipset is. That's what I keenly wait for.

[Hattig]

Were the first ones done using Tiger, and the latter ones using Leopard?

Also with percentage improvements you can't just subtract numbers, e.g., 135% faster - 125% faster = 10% faster.

But yes, it is going to be faster. It's 33MHz faster, the bus speed is 133MHz faster (= more memory bandwidth). The graphics are faster, where relevant, and the OS is faster, where relevant.

[shanmugam]

Originally Posted by Hattig

Were the first ones done using Tiger, and the latter ones using Leopard?

Also with percentage improvements you can't just subtract numbers, e.g., 135% faster - 125% faster = 10% faster.

But yes, it is going to be faster. It's 33MHz faster, the bus speed is 133MHz faster (= more memory bandwidth). The graphics are faster, where relevant, and the OS is faster, where relevant.

you can go upto 4GB where as the previous one 2GB limit, that way it will be faster if you have more RAM.

[ShavenYak]

I'd like to see some gaming benchmarks, or SecondLife performance. I have a 1.83 CD MacBook, so this is getting close to the kind of upgrade that's worthwhile, especially given that the new machine would come with Leopard and iLife '08 - $200 worth of software upgrades.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Earlier this month, Apple ran performance tests on a pre-production 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook and then compared the results to those of its original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook introduced last year.

when was that? DAWN today????

[Rich-Myster]

i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.

[polvadis]

Originally Posted by Rich-Myster

i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.

The way I see it, Apple has always been priced very Elite. Look at the $1,099 dollar MacBook, still no DVD-RW? Even $500 dollar laptops get one these days. I don't understand Apple pricing at all. Same Intel spec laptops are always much much cheaper, so the real question is; how much are you willing to pay extra for Apple?

[Abster2core]

"New MacBooks offer marginal speed improvements (benchmarks)"

I don't feel that the headline reflects the data that was presented. Very misleading to say the least.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Rich-Myster

i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.

So the bigger, LED backlit screen, EC/34 slot, FW800, lit keyboard and extra USB port means nothing, or did you not notice those features? Granted, maybe they aren't worth that much to you, but it's part of the value proposition.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

"New MacBooks offer marginal speed improvements (benchmarks)"

I don't feel that the headline reflects the data that was presented. Very misleading to say the least.

I agree. The MBP upgrades were a lot smaller. There's a huge difference between that negligible CPU upgrade in MBP and the MacBook update.

[Rolo]

What I really want to know is how the performance of the new graphics chipset stacks up against GMA 950. GMA X3100 uses 144MB of system memory rather than 64MB so something has to be better.

[Flounder]

Originally Posted by Rich-Myster

i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.

Why oh why would you possibly be mad? I have that same comp (although I upgraded to the 160 HD, I agree that is a bit chincy by Apple). You have an outstanding machine. In addition to the extra RAM and much much better graphics card, you're also forgetting about the larger, higher resolution LED screen, firewire 800, express card slot, aluminum enclosure, thinner, extra USB port. The MBP will probably get updated at MWSF and surge ahead again.

This is just the way it goes. The macbook will get pretty close in specs, then the MBP gets updated and pulls away again.

To be mad is pure silliness. How long have you had your MBP? Has the time you've been able to enjoy it now not worth anything or diminished in any way by this update? Of course not.

[sumitagarwal]

The X3100 is a massive upgrade from the 950. It finally offers a real hardware texture and lighting engine, and can be configured to use up to 340MB of RAM as video memory (which works better than you'd expect, given today's large system RAM quantities and fast FSB's). I've got an X3100 in my ThinkPad X61 Tablet (still waiting for a Mac Tablet!!!!!) and I can run all but the latest games quite well and enjoyably.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Fishyesque

I'm still waiting for a redesign :P

That'll probably be at least another year- at the least. What's wrong with the design? It's the pro that need a redesign. The MacBooks are directly responsible for Apple's increase in computer percentage. That's why they are getting such a speed boost because evryone loves them. Why would they tamper with something that has been so successful at this point?

[zanshin]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

So the bigger, LED backlit screen, EC/34 slot, FW800, lit keyboard and extra USB port means nothing, or did you not notice those features? Granted, maybe they aren't worth that much to you, but it's part of the value proposition.

I agree; he hasn't figured the added value proposition of the Pro. I realize it's probably part of the whole MBP video card set-up, but having a full-sized dual-link DVI output that drives a 30" monitor instead of mini-DVI that needs an "optional" adapter to output to a 1920x1200 res 23" Cinema display means a lot to me. That and all the features listed above add up to a lot more than $700, especially since you can't add them on as third party upgrades to a MacBook.

Now if Apple would offer an 2.8GHz Extreme Duo processor, drop the FW400 from the MBP (keeping the FW800 port, since it's backward compatible with just a cable) and add an eSATA port, I'd be jumping on a new MBP in a heartbeat.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by polvadis

The way I see it, Apple has always been priced very Elite. Look at the $1,099 dollar MacBook, still no DVD-RW? Even $500 dollar laptops get one these days. I don't understand Apple pricing at all. Same Intel spec laptops are always much much cheaper, so the real question is; how much are you willing to pay extra for Apple?

Not to mention that MacBooks remain stuck on little 13" screens, while on the PC side, 15" is pretty much the norm these days.

But I guess Steve is terrified of losing screen size as a differentiator between the MB and MB Pro, so you gotta fork over $2000 if you want a Mac laptop with a screen larger than 13". Tsk.

The truly sad thing? Macs are 'hot' right now and kicking much ass (particularly in the US notebook market) but they could be truly ANNIHILATING the competition if they were 'hot' and a better value as well.

But Steve's gotta have his margins fatter than Star Jones' buns, so here we are.

I guess when 17" becomes commonplace on the PC side, we'll finally see 15" on the MBs.




Greed... is GOOD. Right, Steve?


.

[nagromme]

I'm glad to see this thread continue the proud tradition of comparing Apple prices by singling out certain specs, while ignoring tons of others Because, you see, all those features (hardware and bundled software a like) a Mac has don't "count." They would if a Dell had them, of course

Some things to look at OTHER than processor, RAM, and drives, when comparing two machines of any kind:

* Chipset and frontside bus

* Ethernet speed

* Firewire and Firewire 800

* Lighted keys

* Sudden motion sensor

* Bluetooth 2.0 EDR

* WiFi and WiFi G

* Portability: size and weight--and size of the POWER SUPPLY too

* Remote control

* Battery life

* GPU and VRAM

* Metal case vs. soft, scratchable plastic

* Screen size and res

* Expresscard slot

* Noise and heat control

* Overall quality and reliability of components

* Bundled software

Etc.

Those things ALL add cost--and user benefit--no mater whether they come from Apple or Acer or HP.

When people compare a cheap Acer to a Dell or HP, they look at everything. Yet when it comes time to compare a cheap Acer to a Mac, they somehow can only see MHz and GB

As for how people can feel to see all the differences between a MacBook and a MacBook Pro... I just can't explain it. The specs are all right there, from GPU to screen size to lighted keys to epansion slot.

And as for screen size: 15" isn't always better than 13". 13" is better for portability, not just for price. It's a size that really makes SENSE, which is why PC makers do in fact use that size too.

And lastly, as for Apple being able to sell zillions more if they did "X"... that only applies if you're certain that Intel and other suppliers can provide that many more components. Apple takes all things into account and winds up with a price that--surprise!--is NOT more expensive than truly COMPARABLE name-brand Windows PCs with similar features and decent software bundles. Despite the often-repeated myth. (And the Mac can run Windows too anyway.)

See http://www.systemshootouts.org - I'm sure they'll be updated soon for the new MacBooks. They compare in a very fair way, since everyone's needs are different. They configure a Mac against a name-brand PC of the same price, and list what each one has that the other lacks. They won't ever be identical (anymore than some Dell is identical to some HP) but the comparison clearly shows the Mac is NOT falling short compared to a PC of the same price. And it's often ahead in big ways. Certain Macs are far CHEAPER than an equivalent name-brand PC. You can't make a blanket statement that all Macs cost more: it hasn't been true for ages.

[TBaggins]

Blah. The question isn't whether Macs are worth more... they are.

The question is, are they being priced within shouting distance of the PC side, even considering the fact that its a Mac? I have my doubts there, which is why I won't be upgrading my Mac notebook 'til I see some better value propositions from Apple.

Ah well.

.

[desarc]

Originally Posted by teckstud

That'll probably be at least another year- at the least. What's wrong with the design? It's the pro that need a redesign. The MacBooks are directly responsible for Apple's increase in computer percentage. That's why they are getting such a speed boost because evryone loves them. Why would they tamper with something that has been so successful at this point?

if you're waiting for a redesign, my question is: What is your problem with the current design?
my macBook pro is almost a perfect design. sure LED backlighting would be nice, sure HDMI would be better than DVI, but the overall design of the macbook pro [and macbook] is a 10 out of 10. no other laptop comes close in industrial design.

[gunnar23]

I am taking my Buddy (he is a PC guy I convinced into buy a MacBook) to buy a macBook next weekend.
How do I know we are purchasing the new processor?

Thanks,

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by nagromme

And as for screen size: 15" isn't always better than 13". 13" is better for portability, not just for price. It's a size that really makes SENSE, which is why PC makers do in fact use that size too.

Oh c'mon, let's be real and stop being such apologists here.

Similary spec'd and even close in price, does anyone honestly doubt that a 15" notebook will massively outsell a 13" one? Apple obviously is aware of the perceived extra value a larger screen brings, that's why they are so reluctant to give the MB a screen size similar to even the low-end MB Pro.

Sure, there are exceptions to the bigger is better credo, and at a certain point a laptop will get cumbersome, but 15" isn't that point for most ppl. And for those who put a true premium on portability, there are subnotebooks. Well, on the PC side there are, at least.

And lastly, as for Apple being able to sell zillions more if they did "X"... that only applies if you're certain that Intel and other suppliers can provide that many more components.

Geez... that would be a nice problem to have, would it not?

Apple takes all things into account and winds up with a price that--surprise!--is NOT more expensive than truly COMPARABLE name-brand Windows PCs with similar features and decent software bundles.

Y'know, I used to buy into that propoganda, but I just don't anymore.

Even Jobs himself has said in interviews that Macs are worth charging something like a 10 to 20 percent premium over equivalent PCs (so much for "Macs are actually CHEAPER than PCs"... if even Jobs doesn't believe it, I don't see how anyone else could), and I think that kind of premium is fair, but I'm not sure he's hitting even that goal anymore.

That's why I can wait to upgrade.

Of course, saying that here is like waving steaks in a lion's den, but there it is.

.

[TBaggins]

Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, as I've got lots to do over the next 4 days, and AI is an incredibly effective time-waster.

Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said, but I've heard 'em all and can probably make the pro-Apple case better than 95% of the ppl here. It's not like I didn't already take it into consideration.

Ciao.

.

[Rich-Myster]

Originally Posted by Flounder

Why oh why would you possibly be mad? I have that same comp (although I upgraded to the 160 HD, I agree that is a bit chincy by Apple). You have an outstanding machine. In addition to the extra RAM and much much better graphics card, you're also forgetting about the larger, higher resolution LED screen, firewire 800, express card slot, aluminum enclosure, thinner, extra USB port. The MBP will probably get updated at MWSF and surge ahead again.

This is just the way it goes. The macbook will get pretty close in specs, then the MBP gets updated and pulls away again.

To be mad is pure silliness. How long have you had your MBP? Has the time you've been able to enjoy it now not worth anything or diminished in any way by this update? Of course not.

i've had it for about a month. the only thing out of the list that you said which interests me is the aluminum and the LED screen and graphic card. And those aren't worth the 800 dollars in difference to me. I am very happy with my machine, it performs well and is very nice to the eyes, especially with my newly purchased leopard, but man, 2200 is a lot of money when i can get something that has almost the same specifications of what i need for 800 bucks less.

On another note, my girlfriend was going to get the same computer as mine, but i told her that she should save her parents the money and get the black macbook which she was debating on. She is going to upgrade the ram to 2gb of ram and then she'll have a machine that's as good as my pro machine minus the shell and graphic card and the other stuff which to me is useless.

p.s. I never realized that the macbook was thinner than the macbook pro. i was flabbergasted D:

p.s.s. get a better server a.i.! i'm always getting, "the server is too busy" messages when i'm trying to view threads or write posts.

[TBaggins]

PS- One final thought before I vamoose...

In a perfect world, you'd just order the size of Mac notebook you wanted... 13", 15" or 17"... and then you'd choose either the 'MacBook' package or the 'Pro' package to go with it.

You'd get to select the portability vs. screen size trade-off you were most comfortable with, and then whether you really needed a consumer or a pro machine. Want a 17" consumer machine? Fine. Want a 13" Pro machine? No problemo. Don't care to drop $2K on a 15" consumer notebook? Cool.

It'd be awesome, and it'd increase sales even above what they are now... but it'd also reduce margins, so it'll be a chilly day in the seventh circle of Hell before Steve-o ever lets it happen.

Lates.

.

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Oh c'mon, let's be real and stop being such apologists here.

Similary spec'd and even close in price, does anyone honestly doubt that a 15" notebook will massively outsell a 13" one?

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said,

I fear you may be letting emotion take over for reason (When trying to be the voice of reason vs. the Apple crazies, less name-calling and more data will improve your credibility. EDIT: I see you've thrown in a "Steve-o"--classic! )

I said nothing about whether 15" for the same price would sell more MacBooks. My point was that 15" isn't "always" (my exact word) better. And I said PC makers sell 13" screens too. Which they do. And I said 13" is more portable, which it is. That doesn't matter to you--but don't confuse your needs with others. 13" is the LARGEST screen I would consider. I have a 15" PowerBook now, and it is too big for me. Size and weight and portability DO matter.

(I like how you say 15" brings "perceived" value )

I've laid out the facts--and given a detailed link--showing why Macs don't cost more than PCs. Throw in reliability and security and productivity, which have a money value too, and Macs are indeed cheaper. Ignoring those factors and looking at specs and software bundles alone, Macs are right in the pack with other name-brand PCs. Apple HAS no bottom-end notebooks, but their mid-range offers similar price vs. specs to PCs. Unless, as you have chosen to do, you ignore certain specs. You can make anything look better or cheaper that way.

Sometimes a Dell is cheaper than an HP. Sometimes an Apple is cheaper than a Dell. Sometimes one brand has a better mix of features for a person's needs than another. A just-released model from one company is often a better package than an older model from another. I can find a Dell that's cheaper than a similar Mac, or HP, or whatever. And as you don't like to admit, I can find an Apple that's cheaper than a Dell too. (You paint things as one-sided and extreme when they are not.) But the point is that Apple's price-vs.-features really IS, on average, right on track with other brands. Take that cheap Dell and add the things its missing, and this is clear. As the link I gave shows--quite reasonably, and without pro-Mac "fanboi" talk at all. It's worth a look, when you're less busy.

Prefacing your misconceptions with saying you like Macs doesn't make them true

And Apple choosing NOT to cut margins to sell more units is perfectly reasonable. Prices are good already, and they seem to be selling quite well and pleasing their customers as is. Including an awful lot of former Windows PC fans. Making Macs a cheap brand might sound like good strategy to you, but I suspect Apple has looked at things in detail and knows otherwise.

In closing, I wholeheartedly support your choice to wait to upgrade until Apple offers something better. I am doing exactly the same. If Apple offered all the features of a MacBook Pro, but with a 13" or smaller screen, they'd have something for me. Right now they don't, but my old Mac is doing just fine for now so I will wait and see.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, as I've got lots to do over the next 4 days, and AI is an incredibly effective time-waster.

Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said, but I've heard 'em all and can probably make the pro-Apple case better than 95% of the ppl here. It's not like I didn't already take it into consideration.

Ciao.

.

Dellusions of Grandeur. Let me know when you want to debate some of these topics and we'll see if you truly cut muster or if you're all bluster Count me in as a fan of 13" LCD. I think consumers today are beginning to view laptops from the perspective of features/weight. 15" LCD are popular for the same reason that square tower cases are popular. They are commodity items.

[lantzn]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

Blah. The question isn't whether Macs are worth more... they are.

The question is, are they being priced within shouting distance of the PC side, even considering the fact that its a Mac? I have my doubts there, which is why I won't be upgrading my Mac notebook 'til I see some better value propositions from Apple.

Ah well.

.

You Baggins ALWAYS complaining, go back to the Shire!

[Flounder]

Originally Posted by Rich-Myster

i've had it for about a month. the only thing out of the list that you said which interests me is the aluminum and the LED screen and graphic card. And those aren't worth the 800 dollars in difference to me. I am very happy with my machine, it performs well and is very nice to the eyes, especially with my newly purchased leopard, but man, 2200 is a lot of money when i can get something that has almost the same specifications of what i need for 800 bucks less.

Then I have to ask, why did you buy the MBP in the first place? It's not like the upgrade that just happened to the macbook was that significant anyways; it was very minor. Seems like the macbook would have been the better value proposition for you in the first place. If it's not worth the price difference now, it shouldn't have been a month ago either.

You shouldn't be mad at apple because of your own buyer's remorse at buying more machine than you needed.

p.s. I never realized that the macbook was thinner than the macbook pro. i was flabbergasted D:

Umm, you've got it backwards. MBP is thinner (although at 1.0 vs. 1.08 it's pretty minor).

[funkfeend]

...or are they commodity items because they are so popular... hmm

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Dellusions of Grandeur. Let me know when you want to debate some of these topics and we'll see if you truly cut muster or if you're all bluster Count me in as a fan of 13" LCD. I think consumers today are beginning to view laptops from the perspective of features/weight. 15" LCD are popular for the same reason that square tower cases are popular. They are commodity items.

[palegolas]

The benchmarks look fantastic!

[Funderling]

I bought my blackbook right after the last refresh, with some fear hanging over my head about the potential for this upgrade somewhere in the (then) near future... but that mostly had to do with the (rampant) rumors at that time of better battery life that could be achieved via Sana Rosa. Doesn't look like that happened at all - the specs page lists the same "up to 6 hours" it did for mine. I suppose it may now actually get 6 hours during somewhat normal use, but seems like they'd milk any battery life gains for all it was worth...

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Funderling

I bought my blackbook right after the last refresh, with some fear hanging over my head about the potential for this upgrade somewhere in the (then) near future... but that mostly had to do with the (rampant) rumors at that time of better battery life that could be achieved via Sana Rosa. Doesn't look like that happened at all - the specs page lists the same "up to 6 hours" it did for mine. I suppose it may now actually get 6 hours during somewhat normal use, but seems like they'd milk any battery life gains for all it was worth...

The gains that we thought we would get just didn't materialize. We thought faster FSB would help, but it did not. There was supposed to be efficiency gains too but they didn't pan out to better battery life.

[1984]

I think a lot of people were expecting the Slim Aluminum MacBooks but I've always felt these were more likely to be MacBook Pros. Only a couple more months until Macworld when MacBook Pro updates are expected so I don't think we have much longer to wait.

[iGuess]

If this is the rumored update why wasn't there a press release for it. During the last update and even the Mini's speed bump we at least had little "faster speed" icons on the Apple Store. The MacBook product page doesn't make a single mention of how it's "now" faster. How come there isn't a single mention of the speed bump at all? What I mean is why isn't Apple obviously pointing it out?

It might not be a significant update which is why there wasn't a press event but to not even mention it at all just seems so un-Apple like. At the end of the day Apple is the kind of company that loves to brag (even if just a little) about everything it does. Just seems strange with all the rumors of an update (including so called analyst predictions) that there'd be no mention of it at all. Just a quiet change on the website with nothing to point it out.

Why wouldn't Apple jump at the opportunity for free advertising of the MacBoook? It couldn't possibly hurt sales could it? Actually wouldn't it encourage sales from the "waiting for the next update" crowd?

Am I alone on this one? Is there something more? Is it possible Apple has something up it's sleeve? Would they bring out a new model so quickly after an update, even a silent one actually especially after a silent one? Could that be why they're being quiet about it?

How hard would it have been for apple to update the chipset? Does it require reworking the motherboard? I don't see how it would. In other words is there any investment required of Apple (R&D, engineering, capital, production equipment, etc.) other than to simply use the new chipset (and maybe test it for stability)?

With the increase in MacBook shipments over the last quarter and the expected growth during the holiday season do you suppose Apple had to update the chipset so they'd have enough chips to keep up with demand while still supplying the Mac Mini? Could Intel have forced the update by giving Apple better pricing on the new chips thereby increasing Apple's profit margin slightly and putting more focus on Intel's current technology? Could Apple just have bought a huge quantity of the new chips to be used in the next revision of the MacBook, guaranteeing better pricing, increasing current margins and building up inventory for the MacBook that hasn't surfaced yet? What if there really is a new case design, but the motherboard, production equipment and testing isn't complete...could that be why this "silent" update happened?

I know, I've asked a lot of questions. Hopefully I got a few brain cells working on this forum. It'd be interesting to discuss it further.

[TBaggins]

Originally Posted by nagromme

The standard fanboi manifesto.

BRAVO! *clap clap clap*

Just kidding.

Look nagromme, I'll keep this a one-shot ('cuz I really have to) but... you did not say a single thing that I haven't heard before. Though I will give you bonus points for being pretty comprehensive about it, and some demerits for misrepresenting/misunderstanding my position (I want to "make Macs a cheap brand"? LOL... nope).

Simply put, I used to think exactly like you do, but I don't anymore. Why? Well, its a different era, for starters.

Back in the 'bad old days' of the Nineties, it made sense to back Apple up 'no matter what'. There were waves of PC trolls (and even journalists) trying to FUD Apple out of existence. I defended Apple with ferocity back then (and still do when it's warranted), and was glad I did.

But it's a different world now. Apple's existence is no longer in doubt, only its long-term excellence. And that excellence is best preserved not by being an Apple 'yes man', but by some clear-eyed tough love.

The old adage is true: Failure breeds success, but success also breeds failure. Just saying "Apple knows best" does them no favors, and in fact helps set them up for an eventual fall. Jobs becoming arrogant when things are going well? Nawwww, that could never happen...

Yeah, I know its hard to see what with us being on top of the world n' all right now. But that's probably what Apple though during the Jean-Louis Gasee super-high margin days, and what IBM thought during the peak of its power. Microsoft right now? Probably same.

What's valuable now is constructive criticism. You yourself stated you wanted a 13" MB Pro? So okay, where is it? Would not something like I proposed in post #27 make some sense then? If not, how could it be tweaked so it did? That's the kind of posting I'm looking for, not party-line 'daddy knows best' restatements of what we've heard before.

And this is why AI has slid so far down the list of sites I visit regularly... not due to the articles, which are GREAT, but due to the community.

It seems like about 5% of the posts are randomness or the occasional troll (par for the internet), 85% are Apple 'booyah' posts or apologista/fanboi dreck, and only maybe 10% are "I like Apple, but I think they would improve if they would..." type posts, i.e. stuff that's actually valuable and what I'm looking for. That ratio just isn't good enough anymore, hence why I come here less than I used to.

You may reject everything I said, or not grok the sprit in which its given, and that's fine, we're all entitled to our views. But hopefully you understand mine a bit better now.

Buh-bye.








.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by TBaggins

BRAVO! *clap clap clap*

Just kidding.
.

For a guy that keeps protesting he's gotta go and can't discuss a topic you sure do respond a lot. That was a long winded post to insult the opponent rather than discuss the issue.

Buh-bye and good riddance if you actually get gone.

[TBaggins]

Tsk. Petty.

.