The current Core 2 Duo Airs yes but those are very old. Current generation ULV chips are over twice as fast and outperform the current Macbook.
We won't know for sure how much better the machines perform until they are available. There are many factors to consider and frankly it is guess work to determine how every component interacts. For example if Sandy Bridge only configurations come you end up losing GPU acceleration through OpenCL. That can be significant.
Quote:
They can't use AMD because of Thunderbolt.
What does AMD have to do with it? They use AMD GPU's just fine with TB and PCI-Express is PCI-Express.
Quote:
Apps and files still need to get into RAM and SSD is far better than HDD.
Yes and it is a great way to quickly mislead somebody. For example just about anybody using spread sheet software or in memory databases will see a significant difference in performance.
My point remains, it is misleading to focus on opening apps when addressing a customers performance questions.
Quote:
Due to the capacity of SSD currently available, the MB could well have another revision left in it but if it's not replaced this year, it will be next year.
Interesting that there has been no leaks yet today. The info on the AIR's and Pros spilled a bit today, but that isn't much of a surprise. The lack of a MacBook leak is a bit of a disappointment.
First; it would help both Intel and Apple if they could show that Thunderbolt is open technology suitable for use with anybodies processor. Right now there are a lot of questions in the community as to the wisdom of adopting TB.
Second; if AMD is as successful with Fusion as some think they will be, they will take share from Intel. Right now Fusion is seen as a better processor than Sandy Bridge, obviously depending upon how you measure better. The processor is certainly far more suited to common user workloads that SB. So we have real issues with the competitive landscape.
Third; we have a democrat in the White house which means witch hunts when it comes to corporations. It is in Apples and Intels best interests to make sure that TB is openly supported on platforms from other companies.
Fourth; I honestly believe that Apple needs to migrate the Mac Book downward cost wise and to continue to do so for some time. AMD allows for this while retaining reasonable margins.
Fifth; it can be a problem to be tied to closely to anyone supplier. This is all about diversification, to protect ones supply lines. It really doesn't take much to wiped out a source of parts as the recent happenings in Japan teach us. In the past Apple wasn't big enough to even have to focus on this, now they are one of the biggest consumers of chips in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
Nothing prevents them from pairing the Thunderbolt controller chip with an AMD system.
I don't believe Apple will ever use AMD processors, but you are absolutely wrong about that reason.
It is no surprise that I want them to design in some AMD hardware. Frankly there are only two platforms at Apple where it makes sense to me right now. One being the Mac Book the other being the Mini. You may be right though, I'm sure they buddied up to Intel like a bride and groom at a shotgun wedding.
First; it would help both Intel and Apple if they could show that Thunderbolt is open technology suitable for use with anybody's processor. Right now there are a lot of questions in the community as to the wisdom of adopting TB.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Second; if AMD is as successful with Fusion as some think they will be, they will take share from Intel. Right now Fusion is seen as a better processor than Sandy Bridge, obviously depending upon how you measure better. The processor is certainly far more suited to common user workloads that SB. So we have real issues with the competitive landscape.
I'm not so sure that the superiority of AMD is quite as clear as you think. I'm also expecting a lot from Ivy Bridge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Third; we have a democrat in the White house which means witch hunts when it comes to corporations. It is in Apple's and Intel's best interests to make sure that TB is openly supported on platforms from other companies.
They may look like witch hunts, but they are actually shake-downs. It's all about campaign contributions. Senior Apple employees, cumulatively, contributed less to Obama's election campaign than most other Fortune 500 companies, so Apple suffer retaliation at the hands of the "Justice" Department. It would be much worse for Apple if they hadn't put Al Gore on the board to protect against exactly this. Why do you think Apple were allowed to bid for the Nortel patents? All Fortune 500 with low contributions to Obama's political machine are similarly harassed by the administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Fourth; I honestly believe that Apple needs to migrate the Mac Book downward cost wise and to continue to do so for some time. AMD allows for this while retaining reasonable margins.
I agree that Apple need to bring the base price of the MacBook down to $899. However, I suspect you are overestimating the prices that Apple pay to Intel for chips. I don't think Apple have much room to put cheaper components into the MacBook while maintaining their quality standards. I think the only low-hanging fruit is simplifying the MacBook. Dropping the internal optical brick is the obvious move, it part because it fits with Apple's strategic interests. As a counter-example, dropping the video out would be contrary to Apple's strategic interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Fifth; it can be a problem to be tied too closely to any one supplier. This is all about diversification, to protect one's supply lines. It really doesn't take much to wipe out a source of parts as the recent happenings in Japan teach us. In the past Apple wasn't big enough to even have to focus on this, now they are one of the biggest consumers of chips in the world.
This is true for commodity components, but one cannot just plug an AMD CPU into a socket meant for an Intel CPU. Intel have a very large number of fabs located all over the world, strategically located to minimize the risks to their ability to supply customers. Switching to AMD would increase, not decrease, supply chain risk for Apple.
Interesting that there has been no leaks yet today. The info on the AIR's and Pros spilled a bit today, but that isn't much of a surprise. The lack of a MacBook leak is a bit of a disappointment.
Perhaps a bit of a disappointment, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Quite the contrary. I would be surprised if Apple were to revise both the MacBook and the MacBook Air in the same week -- especially together with the Mac Pro. It would be too disruptive in many ways. One example is the extra traffic in the retail stores (and the online stores) is better spread out than concentrated in time. There are similar issues for Apple's QA teams and for component suppliers. Companies want the waves generated by their product cycles to cancel, not reinforce, each other.
My guess is that the MacBook Air and Mac Pro will be revised in July, the MacBook in August, and the Mac Mini in September. We'll have to wait to see.
We won't know for sure how much better the machines perform until they are available.
I think it's still a safe bet to assume CPU performance will double as that's pretty much the minimum on offer. Core 2 Duos are very old. The GPU performance will suffer a bit going from the 320M to the HD 3000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What does AMD have to do with it? They use AMD GPU's just fine with TB and PCI-Express is PCI-Express.
They might be able to integrate it but it's not clear what the roadmap ahead is for Thunderbolt. Apple is working with Intel on this so to go with an AMD model isn't going to work well at all.
I prefer AMD's setup with slightly lower CPU and much more powerful GPUs and it seems like a better option but unfortunately they give no indication of using anything more than their GPUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
My point remains, it is misleading to focus on opening apps when addressing a customers performance questions.
You can generalise it to be misleading to focus on anything that doesn't address their specific needs. If application and document loading is where they find the computer slow then focusing on CPU benchmarking is not going to help them. I think SSDs (and iPads) have proved that consumers are far more storage limited than CPU limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
My guess is that the MacBook Air and Mac Pro will be revised in July, the MacBook in August, and the Mac Mini in September. We'll have to wait to see.
I think the Macbook Air and Mini will come with Lion and the MB discontinued. I think the iPhone will launch in September and Mac Pro in October/November. If Apple has access to the Xeon E5 chips early then they can all launch with Lion in the next couple of weeks.
I think the Macbook Air and Mini will come with Lion and the MB discontinued.
You were right.
I still think Apple should offer a 12" or 13" aluminium MacBook at the lowest possible price ($799 or $899?) by dropping the internal optical brick and including:
- a low-cost i3 or i5 processor
- Intel integrated graphics only
- 4-8GB RAM
- 2.5" HD (no SSD option)
- non-backlit keyboard
- 10 hour battery
- the same set of ports as the new 11" MBA (magsafe, Thunderbolt, 2xUSB, audio)
Weight and thickness would be less than the MacBook Pro, but not in the territory of the MacBook Air.
I still think Apple should offer a 12" or 13" aluminium MacBook at the lowest possible price ($799 or $899?) by dropping the internal optical brick
They need to push people onto SSD. If they offered an HDD model, people would just go for it to get the capacity. I think they should have hit 128GB in the entry model but they obviously weren't able to at this point in time.
With Intel moving to ULV and optical being removed, I reckon the Air and MBP will merge down the line but I don't see a movement back to HDD. In a year or two, the MBA will get 512GB SSDs.
I still think Apple should offer a 12" or 13" aluminium MacBook at the lowest possible price ($799 or $899?) by dropping the internal optical brick and including:
- a low-cost i3 or i5 processor
- Intel integrated graphics only
- 4-8GB RAM
- 2.5" HD (no SSD option)
- non-backlit keyboard
- 10 hour battery
- the same set of ports as the new 11" MBA (magsafe, Thunderbolt, 2xUSB, audio)
Weight and thickness would be less than the MacBook Pro, but not in the territory of the MacBook Air.
It's Apple.
I can't see them doing any laptop at all under $1000 (Apple-speak $999). They need to keep their margins high.
Even the current entry-level 11.6" MBA is ho hum (really 2 GB?), and they charge $999. They could drop the prices to more reasonable levels, but people will still buy them no matter what, so in the end, they would just lose profit margins to lower the price.
Baring something amazing, I think that the 11.6" base MBA is the new "Macbook", even though the screen is small, but maybe they're figuring that since people are buying iPads, again, people will buy it no matter what.
So that it becomes the mainstream storage format and not the expensive luxury format. If you show someone a $300 128GB drive and a $50 500GB drive, chances are, they will go for the 500GB drive.
This means SSD sales stay low and people fill up their 500GB internal drives and find it very difficult to migrate to smaller storage.
Apple put IPS displays in their tablets and desktops because they know what users should want and it's only when they are forced to take it do they see the difference.
People won't voluntarily move away from optical so Apple has no choice but to take the drive away. It causes some upset as evidenced here:
They gave the Mini a 6/10 score pretty much for not having an optical drive yet the MBA 9/10, while ignoring the fact it also doesn't have one. That exactly highlights why tech journalists shouldn't be the deciders of what constitutes good and bad decisions in the industry because they only look at what happens now.
e.g I want Blu-Ray now, I want 500GB now, I want USB 3 now etc.
Blu-Ray has no future, HDDs have no future, USB 3 does have a future and Apple need to push people along the right path.
Comments
They can't use AMD because of Thunderbolt.
Nothing prevents them from pairing the Thunderbolt controller chip with an AMD system.
I don't believe Apple will ever use AMD processors, but you are absolutely wrong about that reason.
The current Core 2 Duo Airs yes but those are very old. Current generation ULV chips are over twice as fast and outperform the current Macbook.
We won't know for sure how much better the machines perform until they are available. There are many factors to consider and frankly it is guess work to determine how every component interacts. For example if Sandy Bridge only configurations come you end up losing GPU acceleration through OpenCL. That can be significant.
They can't use AMD because of Thunderbolt.
What does AMD have to do with it? They use AMD GPU's just fine with TB and PCI-Express is PCI-Express.
Apps and files still need to get into RAM and SSD is far better than HDD.
Yes and it is a great way to quickly mislead somebody. For example just about anybody using spread sheet software or in memory databases will see a significant difference in performance.
My point remains, it is misleading to focus on opening apps when addressing a customers performance questions.
Due to the capacity of SSD currently available, the MB could well have another revision left in it but if it's not replaced this year, it will be next year.
Interesting that there has been no leaks yet today. The info on the AIR's and Pros spilled a bit today, but that isn't much of a surprise. The lack of a MacBook leak is a bit of a disappointment.
Second; if AMD is as successful with Fusion as some think they will be, they will take share from Intel. Right now Fusion is seen as a better processor than Sandy Bridge, obviously depending upon how you measure better. The processor is certainly far more suited to common user workloads that SB. So we have real issues with the competitive landscape.
Third; we have a democrat in the White house which means witch hunts when it comes to corporations. It is in Apples and Intels best interests to make sure that TB is openly supported on platforms from other companies.
Fourth; I honestly believe that Apple needs to migrate the Mac Book downward cost wise and to continue to do so for some time. AMD allows for this while retaining reasonable margins.
Fifth; it can be a problem to be tied to closely to anyone supplier. This is all about diversification, to protect ones supply lines. It really doesn't take much to wiped out a source of parts as the recent happenings in Japan teach us. In the past Apple wasn't big enough to even have to focus on this, now they are one of the biggest consumers of chips in the world.
Nothing prevents them from pairing the Thunderbolt controller chip with an AMD system.
I don't believe Apple will ever use AMD processors, but you are absolutely wrong about that reason.
It is no surprise that I want them to design in some AMD hardware. Frankly there are only two platforms at Apple where it makes sense to me right now. One being the Mac Book the other being the Mini. You may be right though, I'm sure they buddied up to Intel like a bride and groom at a shotgun wedding.
First; it would help both Intel and Apple if they could show that Thunderbolt is open technology suitable for use with anybody's processor. Right now there are a lot of questions in the community as to the wisdom of adopting TB.
I agree.
Second; if AMD is as successful with Fusion as some think they will be, they will take share from Intel. Right now Fusion is seen as a better processor than Sandy Bridge, obviously depending upon how you measure better. The processor is certainly far more suited to common user workloads that SB. So we have real issues with the competitive landscape.
I'm not so sure that the superiority of AMD is quite as clear as you think. I'm also expecting a lot from Ivy Bridge.
Third; we have a democrat in the White house which means witch hunts when it comes to corporations. It is in Apple's and Intel's best interests to make sure that TB is openly supported on platforms from other companies.
They may look like witch hunts, but they are actually shake-downs. It's all about campaign contributions. Senior Apple employees, cumulatively, contributed less to Obama's election campaign than most other Fortune 500 companies, so Apple suffer retaliation at the hands of the "Justice" Department. It would be much worse for Apple if they hadn't put Al Gore on the board to protect against exactly this. Why do you think Apple were allowed to bid for the Nortel patents? All Fortune 500 with low contributions to Obama's political machine are similarly harassed by the administration.
Fourth; I honestly believe that Apple needs to migrate the Mac Book downward cost wise and to continue to do so for some time. AMD allows for this while retaining reasonable margins.
I agree that Apple need to bring the base price of the MacBook down to $899. However, I suspect you are overestimating the prices that Apple pay to Intel for chips. I don't think Apple have much room to put cheaper components into the MacBook while maintaining their quality standards. I think the only low-hanging fruit is simplifying the MacBook. Dropping the internal optical brick is the obvious move, it part because it fits with Apple's strategic interests. As a counter-example, dropping the video out would be contrary to Apple's strategic interests.
Fifth; it can be a problem to be tied too closely to any one supplier. This is all about diversification, to protect one's supply lines. It really doesn't take much to wipe out a source of parts as the recent happenings in Japan teach us. In the past Apple wasn't big enough to even have to focus on this, now they are one of the biggest consumers of chips in the world.
This is true for commodity components, but one cannot just plug an AMD CPU into a socket meant for an Intel CPU. Intel have a very large number of fabs located all over the world, strategically located to minimize the risks to their ability to supply customers. Switching to AMD would increase, not decrease, supply chain risk for Apple.
Interesting that there has been no leaks yet today. The info on the AIR's and Pros spilled a bit today, but that isn't much of a surprise. The lack of a MacBook leak is a bit of a disappointment.
Perhaps a bit of a disappointment, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Quite the contrary. I would be surprised if Apple were to revise both the MacBook and the MacBook Air in the same week -- especially together with the Mac Pro. It would be too disruptive in many ways. One example is the extra traffic in the retail stores (and the online stores) is better spread out than concentrated in time. There are similar issues for Apple's QA teams and for component suppliers. Companies want the waves generated by their product cycles to cancel, not reinforce, each other.
My guess is that the MacBook Air and Mac Pro will be revised in July, the MacBook in August, and the Mac Mini in September. We'll have to wait to see.
We won't know for sure how much better the machines perform until they are available.
I think it's still a safe bet to assume CPU performance will double as that's pretty much the minimum on offer. Core 2 Duos are very old. The GPU performance will suffer a bit going from the 320M to the HD 3000.
What does AMD have to do with it? They use AMD GPU's just fine with TB and PCI-Express is PCI-Express.
They might be able to integrate it but it's not clear what the roadmap ahead is for Thunderbolt. Apple is working with Intel on this so to go with an AMD model isn't going to work well at all.
I prefer AMD's setup with slightly lower CPU and much more powerful GPUs and it seems like a better option but unfortunately they give no indication of using anything more than their GPUs.
My point remains, it is misleading to focus on opening apps when addressing a customers performance questions.
You can generalise it to be misleading to focus on anything that doesn't address their specific needs. If application and document loading is where they find the computer slow then focusing on CPU benchmarking is not going to help them. I think SSDs (and iPads) have proved that consumers are far more storage limited than CPU limited.
My guess is that the MacBook Air and Mac Pro will be revised in July, the MacBook in August, and the Mac Mini in September. We'll have to wait to see.
I think the Macbook Air and Mini will come with Lion and the MB discontinued. I think the iPhone will launch in September and Mac Pro in October/November. If Apple has access to the Xeon E5 chips early then they can all launch with Lion in the next couple of weeks.
I think the Macbook Air and Mini will come with Lion and the MB discontinued.
You were right.
I still think Apple should offer a 12" or 13" aluminium MacBook at the lowest possible price ($799 or $899?) by dropping the internal optical brick and including:
- a low-cost i3 or i5 processor
- Intel integrated graphics only
- 4-8GB RAM
- 2.5" HD (no SSD option)
- non-backlit keyboard
- 10 hour battery
- the same set of ports as the new 11" MBA (magsafe, Thunderbolt, 2xUSB, audio)
Weight and thickness would be less than the MacBook Pro, but not in the territory of the MacBook Air.
I still think Apple should offer a 12" or 13" aluminium MacBook at the lowest possible price ($799 or $899?) by dropping the internal optical brick
They need to push people onto SSD. If they offered an HDD model, people would just go for it to get the capacity. I think they should have hit 128GB in the entry model but they obviously weren't able to at this point in time.
With Intel moving to ULV and optical being removed, I reckon the Air and MBP will merge down the line but I don't see a movement back to HDD. In a year or two, the MBA will get 512GB SSDs.
You were right.
I still think Apple should offer a 12" or 13" aluminium MacBook at the lowest possible price ($799 or $899?) by dropping the internal optical brick and including:
- a low-cost i3 or i5 processor
- Intel integrated graphics only
- 4-8GB RAM
- 2.5" HD (no SSD option)
- non-backlit keyboard
- 10 hour battery
- the same set of ports as the new 11" MBA (magsafe, Thunderbolt, 2xUSB, audio)
Weight and thickness would be less than the MacBook Pro, but not in the territory of the MacBook Air.
It's Apple.
I can't see them doing any laptop at all under $1000 (Apple-speak $999). They need to keep their margins high.
Even the current entry-level 11.6" MBA is ho hum (really 2 GB?), and they charge $999. They could drop the prices to more reasonable levels, but people will still buy them no matter what, so in the end, they would just lose profit margins to lower the price.
Baring something amazing, I think that the 11.6" base MBA is the new "Macbook", even though the screen is small, but maybe they're figuring that since people are buying iPads, again, people will buy it no matter what.
They need to push people onto SSD.
Why do Apple need to push people onto SSD? In the case of Thunderbolt, there are network effects. In the case of SSD, there are no network effects.
Why do Apple need to push people onto SSD?
So that it becomes the mainstream storage format and not the expensive luxury format. If you show someone a $300 128GB drive and a $50 500GB drive, chances are, they will go for the 500GB drive.
This means SSD sales stay low and people fill up their 500GB internal drives and find it very difficult to migrate to smaller storage.
Apple put IPS displays in their tablets and desktops because they know what users should want and it's only when they are forced to take it do they see the difference.
People won't voluntarily move away from optical so Apple has no choice but to take the drive away. It causes some upset as evidenced here:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/27/e...ve-for-better/
They gave the Mini a 6/10 score pretty much for not having an optical drive yet the MBA 9/10, while ignoring the fact it also doesn't have one. That exactly highlights why tech journalists shouldn't be the deciders of what constitutes good and bad decisions in the industry because they only look at what happens now.
e.g I want Blu-Ray now, I want 500GB now, I want USB 3 now etc.
Blu-Ray has no future, HDDs have no future, USB 3 does have a future and Apple need to push people along the right path.