Why not a 17" Macbook?
The 15" MacBook is just a start. The MacBook I think is for those who feel they need a laptop with an Intel processor now. Introducing one machine is good because that gives Apple time and room to work out the kinks and the bugs. If the MacBook Pro shows signs of serious prolems Apple still offers the old line of laptops. If all goes well Apple can transition the whole line faster.
Not impressed, I thought the switch to Intel was supposed to lower prices...
Apple never said it would lower prices. The computer has dual processor for the same price, what're people complaining about?
Why not FW800? That's absurd for video professionals on the field!
Actually most all professional video equipment use Firewire 400. That's becasue Intel does not support Firewire 800, therefore very few PC's have FireWire 800. Mac's are the only OEM machines I know of that ship with Firewire 800. The result is there really is no huge demand for FireWire 800.
Hopefully in the near future Apple and Intel will work out these differences and Intel will support Firewire 800 and Apple will support wireless USB.
And the iSight onslaught continues...
As far as the iSight. I'm sure there are several imaginative ways to disable it. Paint black over it, etc. I guess it would be easier for the customer overall if Apple just offerd an iSightless version.
are we to assume these processors are 64bit? it would seem stupid for them not to be but it doesnt seem to mention it newhere.
Intel Core Duo are 32 bit chips. Intel will not offer a 64 bit Core chip until later this year.
With the name MacBook Pro. Its true that's not as elegant a name as PowerBook. At the same time PowerBook had become too good of a name. To the point that some people were calling laptops PowerBooks in general not only for Mac's.
Going to Intel Apple needs to build strong brand recognition for Macintosh.