i would be satisfied with gradual increases, in speed and battery consumption.
us average joes have more than enough power on our computers to perform our most used tasks. light weight and long lasting batteries and we will be fine. If Intel brings that with the merom platform, then lets ride the bunny.
I welcome the name MacBook to replace the name iBook. I'm kind of tired of the i naming scheme. I'm even tired of my own name!
MacBook Pro, however, sounds like a good name for accounting software, not a portable computer.
I'll be surprised if new iBooks/MacBooks come with dual cores in them but I don't know what else Apple might use. I just know I'm ready to get one to replace my iBook G3. My main concern is that it has a better display. I don't really care so much how fast it is.
So it looks like the core-solo will not be available until the second half of the year. If a MacBook (iBook) is introduced around March ~ April then it will most likely use a 1.5 GHz low voltage core-duo then. Same goes for the Mac mini. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have a low voltage core-duo at 1.5 GHz than a core-solo at 1.67 GHz. That's assuming there isn't too much of a performance hit with the low voltage versions.
So it looks like the core-solo will not be available until the second half of the year. If a MacBook (iBook) is introduced around March ~ April then it will most likely use a 1.5 GHz low voltage core-duo then. Same goes for the Mac mini. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have a low voltage core-duo at 1.5 GHz than a core-solo at 1.67 GHz. That's assuming there isn't too much of a performance hit with the low voltage versions.
I think this will not happen because the Low-Voltage Core Duo is more expensive than the "typical" one. If we already have the cheapest in the $2000 MacBook Pro, no way the more expensive one could be in a $1000 MacBook (iBook).
As for availability, Intel is rushing all their new chips. Think the desktop chip Conroe (and possibly the Xeon Woodcrest too) has been retargeted sooner to July -perfect for an announce at WWDC- and Merom to September -just for Apple Expo-). All these chips were originally targeted for a H2-2006 release (and Woodcrest even for late 2006 to early 2007). So Core Solo could also have been advanced to March.
is it totally impossible the macbook pro will use the lv-series yonah? i havent seen any real info on exactly which 'core duo' they put in it and by the time these machines actually ship, maybe intel got a few 1.83 ghz chips for apple to use?
It would be very great and wonderfully Job-esque if MacBook Pro actually has the "L" version of Core Duo (L2300 and L2400), but I doubt it. Time will tell.
It would be very great and wonderfully Job-esque if MacBook Pro actually has the "L" version of Core Duo (L2300 and L2400), but I doubt it. Time will tell.
If someone knows the forumla Apple uses (or a standard one? idk) to determine performance/watt they could use the wattage requirements listed above (with clock speed) and the 1.05 perf/watt number SJ gave in the keynote to figure out if it is the L version, right? (betting it's non-L)
It would be very great and wonderfully Job-esque if MacBook Pro actually has the "L" version of Core Duo (L2300 and L2400), but I doubt it. Time will tell.
i guess they want to be able to put the t2500 or even t2600 in the 17" macbook pro without making its battery time look too sucky next to the 15"...
Probably because most people prefer to have their screen in front on them and not the Powermac!
Exactly. It may make more sense to see iSights built into Cinema Displays in the future as a selling feature over the competition if the cost to put them in isn't significant.
Exactly. It may make more sense to see iSights built into Cinema Displays in the future as a selling feature over the competition if the cost to put them in isn't significant.
I was picturing chats with people's elbows and knees
And iDave, you can run QuickBooks Pro on your MacBook Pro!
Think Secret thinks iMac could actually use the "T" Core Duo variant and MacBook Pro the lower voltage one:
Quote:
As previously reported, Intel's Core Duo processor is available in two varieties. Based on speeds, it appears the MacBook Pro's 1.67/1.83GHz processors are drawn from the lower voltage variant of the processor, while the iMac's 1.83GHz/2.0GHz processors belong to the higher voltage performance variant.
This would be better like this. But 1.67/1.83GHz frequencies exist both in "T" and "L" variants, so we cannot know exactly yet.
This article that ghstmrs linked(thanks to you and to Telomar, and whomever else) says 'sources told tg daily that merom silicon as part of the Napa64 platform is on track, but currently shows higher power consumption levels than the compay anticipated.'
It also notes that there are higher power consumption levels under vista than under windos xp.
I would suppose that comments more on vista than on anything relevant to the Mac platform, except for the fact that it may be that the merom chip is not quite so cool running as intel hoped, 'currently'.
Think Secret thinks iMac could actually use the "T" Core Duo variant and MacBook Pro the lower voltage one
But doesn't that fancy Intel Schedule chart you posted up there say that the 1.83Ghz Low-voltage variant doesn't ship till the second half of 2006? Apple's putting them in MacBooks in February. Or is that schedule outdated? The use of the low-voltage variants in MacBook Pro's would certainly explain why Apple isn't offering a 2Ghz MacBook Pro, as such a chip doesn't exist in the low-voltage versions.
...The use of the low-voltage variants in MacBook Pro's would certainly explain why Apple isn't offering a 2Ghz MacBook Pro, as such a chip doesn't exist in the low-voltage versions.
I think this will not happen because the Low-Voltage Core Duo is more expensive than the "typical" one. If we already have the cheapest in the $2000 MacBook Pro, no way the more expensive one could be in a $1000 MacBook (iBook).
I wouldn't put it past Apple to pay more for a slightly slower low-voltage chip just to balance the Consumer vs Pro line. Depends on how much more expensive it is. If they plan on selling say 3x as many MacBooks as MacBook Pros they could get a better discount on the chips. Also, they probably save more than enough on the rest of the MacBook (iBook) by using lower-end components to make it work out.
But doesn't that fancy Intel Schedule chart you posted up there say that the 1.83Ghz Low-voltage variant doesn't ship till the second half of 2006? Apple's putting them in MacBooks in February. Or is that schedule outdated? The use of the low-voltage variants in MacBook Pro's would certainly explain why Apple isn't offering a 2Ghz MacBook Pro, as such a chip doesn't exist in the low-voltage versions.
Uhh, Apple isn't using the low voltage chip in Intel PowerBooks. They're using the normal "T" variant.
Intel core solo chips are not due to be available till march, I would wait at least until then for an Intel iBook.
and i dont think they will change the name of the iBook, they dont need to, and it has powerfully (pun intended) brand recognition
When Steve introduced the MacBook Pro he said "It's a new name because we're kinda done with Power and because we want Mac in the name of our products" so I think the iBook name will not be used when the consumer notebook get an Intel processor. As for the new name I can see it getting called "iMacBook" or "iMac Book"
Comments
us average joes have more than enough power on our computers to perform our most used tasks. light weight and long lasting batteries and we will be fine. If Intel brings that with the merom platform, then lets ride the bunny.
MacBook Pro, however, sounds like a good name for accounting software, not a portable computer.
I'll be surprised if new iBooks/MacBooks come with dual cores in them but I don't know what else Apple might use. I just know I'm ready to get one to replace my iBook G3. My main concern is that it has a better display. I don't really care so much how fast it is.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
-------------------------------------------------------------
"T Series" Typical (25-49 W, 31W typical)
- Core Duo T2700: 2.33 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
- Core Duo T2600: 2.17 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06)
- Core Duo T2500: 2.00 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06) -> iMac
- Core Duo T2400: 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06) -> iMac & MacBook Pro
- Core Solo T1400: 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
- Core Duo T2300: 1.67 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06) -> MacBook Pro
- Core Solo T1300: 1.67 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
-------------------------------------------------------------
"L Series" Low-Voltage (LV) (15-24 W)
- Core Duo L2500: 1.83 GHz, FSB 667 (H2-06)
- Core Duo L2400: 1.67 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06)
- Core Duo L2300: 1.50 GHz, FSB 667 (Q1-06)
-------------------------------------------------------------
So it looks like the core-solo will not be available until the second half of the year. If a MacBook (iBook) is introduced around March ~ April then it will most likely use a 1.5 GHz low voltage core-duo then. Same goes for the Mac mini. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have a low voltage core-duo at 1.5 GHz than a core-solo at 1.67 GHz. That's assuming there isn't too much of a performance hit with the low voltage versions.
Originally posted by 1984
So it looks like the core-solo will not be available until the second half of the year. If a MacBook (iBook) is introduced around March ~ April then it will most likely use a 1.5 GHz low voltage core-duo then. Same goes for the Mac mini. Sounds good to me. I'd rather have a low voltage core-duo at 1.5 GHz than a core-solo at 1.67 GHz. That's assuming there isn't too much of a performance hit with the low voltage versions.
I think this will not happen because the Low-Voltage Core Duo is more expensive than the "typical" one. If we already have the cheapest in the $2000 MacBook Pro, no way the more expensive one could be in a $1000 MacBook (iBook).
As for availability, Intel is rushing all their new chips. Think the desktop chip Conroe (and possibly the Xeon Woodcrest too) has been retargeted sooner to July -perfect for an announce at WWDC- and Merom to September -just for Apple Expo-). All these chips were originally targeted for a H2-2006 release (and Woodcrest even for late 2006 to early 2007). So Core Solo could also have been advanced to March.
am i being overoptimistic?
edit: macbook pro
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
It would be very great and wonderfully Job-esque if MacBook Pro actually has the "L" version of Core Duo (L2300 and L2400), but I doubt it. Time will tell.
If someone knows the forumla Apple uses (or a standard one? idk) to determine performance/watt they could use the wattage requirements listed above (with clock speed) and the 1.05 perf/watt number SJ gave in the keynote to figure out if it is the L version, right?
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
It would be very great and wonderfully Job-esque if MacBook Pro actually has the "L" version of Core Duo (L2300 and L2400), but I doubt it. Time will tell.
i guess they want to be able to put the t2500 or even t2600 in the 17" macbook pro without making its battery time look too sucky next to the 15"...
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Probably because most people prefer to have their screen in front on them and not the Powermac!
Exactly. It may make more sense to see iSights built into Cinema Displays in the future as a selling feature over the competition if the cost to put them in isn't significant.
Originally posted by rrabu
Exactly. It may make more sense to see iSights built into Cinema Displays in the future as a selling feature over the competition if the cost to put them in isn't significant.
I was picturing chats with people's elbows and knees
As previously reported, Intel's Core Duo processor is available in two varieties. Based on speeds, it appears the MacBook Pro's 1.67/1.83GHz processors are drawn from the lower voltage variant of the processor, while the iMac's 1.83GHz/2.0GHz processors belong to the higher voltage performance variant.
This would be better like this. But 1.67/1.83GHz frequencies exist both in "T" and "L" variants, so we cannot know exactly yet.
It also notes that there are higher power consumption levels under vista than under windos xp.
I would suppose that comments more on vista than on anything relevant to the Mac platform, except for the fact that it may be that the merom chip is not quite so cool running as intel hoped, 'currently'.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Think Secret thinks iMac could actually use the "T" Core Duo variant and MacBook Pro the lower voltage one
But doesn't that fancy Intel Schedule chart you posted up there say that the 1.83Ghz Low-voltage variant doesn't ship till the second half of 2006? Apple's putting them in MacBooks in February. Or is that schedule outdated? The use of the low-voltage variants in MacBook Pro's would certainly explain why Apple isn't offering a 2Ghz MacBook Pro, as such a chip doesn't exist in the low-voltage versions.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
...The use of the low-voltage variants in MacBook Pro's would certainly explain why Apple isn't offering a 2Ghz MacBook Pro, as such a chip doesn't exist in the low-voltage versions.
Or the 2Ghz in the T Series is too hot.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
I think this will not happen because the Low-Voltage Core Duo is more expensive than the "typical" one. If we already have the cheapest in the $2000 MacBook Pro, no way the more expensive one could be in a $1000 MacBook (iBook).
I wouldn't put it past Apple to pay more for a slightly slower low-voltage chip just to balance the Consumer vs Pro line. Depends on how much more expensive it is. If they plan on selling say 3x as many MacBooks as MacBook Pros they could get a better discount on the chips. Also, they probably save more than enough on the rest of the MacBook (iBook) by using lower-end components to make it work out.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
But doesn't that fancy Intel Schedule chart you posted up there say that the 1.83Ghz Low-voltage variant doesn't ship till the second half of 2006? Apple's putting them in MacBooks in February. Or is that schedule outdated? The use of the low-voltage variants in MacBook Pro's would certainly explain why Apple isn't offering a 2Ghz MacBook Pro, as such a chip doesn't exist in the low-voltage versions.
Uhh, Apple isn't using the low voltage chip in Intel PowerBooks. They're using the normal "T" variant.
Originally posted by Electric Monk
Uhh, Apple isn't using the low voltage chip in Intel PowerBooks. They're using the normal "T" variant.
We know that for a fact, eh?
Originally posted by Electric Monk
Uhh, Apple isn't using the low voltage chip in Intel PowerBooks. They're using the normal "T" variant.
Ok then.
Originally posted by Thereubster
Intel core solo chips are not due to be available till march, I would wait at least until then for an Intel iBook.
and i dont think they will change the name of the iBook, they dont need to, and it has powerfully (pun intended) brand recognition
When Steve introduced the MacBook Pro he said "It's a new name because we're kinda done with Power and because we want Mac in the name of our products" so I think the iBook name will not be used when the consumer notebook get an Intel processor. As for the new name I can see it getting called "iMacBook" or "iMac Book"