You're being facetious here, aren't you? I mean, clearly Apple was being conservative in their estimates on how good yields Intel would have. So if Intel couldn't deliver enough top-speed chips; Apple wouldn't have to downgrade their machines or face long shipping delays. This was a good call by Apple. And a pleasant surprise for all those early adopters.
I had a weird feeling you were whining about the speedbump being the logical solution to somekind of problem.
It is. That of not being competitive against Windows laptops which are almost all coming out at 1.83 and 2.0Ghz. Look at Toshiba's Tecra range for instance. They've mostly skipped the 1.6 but for low end models with 40GB hard drives.
It is. That of not being competitive against Windows laptops which are almost all coming out at 1.83 and 2.0Ghz. Look at Toshiba's Tecra range for instance. They've mostly skipped the 1.6 but for low end models with 40GB hard drives.
Yeah but where is that magical computer that isn't thicker than the MacBook Pro?
You're being facetious here, aren't you? I mean, clearly Apple was being conservative in their estimates on how good yields Intel would have. So if Intel couldn't deliver enough top-speed chips; Apple wouldn't have to downgrade their machines or face long shipping delays. This was a good call by Apple. And a pleasant surprise for all those early adopters.
Not facetious at all. I'm an early adopter, ordering the top-end model, whatever it happened to be. Now they come out with a new top-end, and mine is lost somewhere in my bureaucracy at work, and I don't know if I'll be able to change it. It's just dumb planning on their part. I'd rather get what I order than be "surprised" with a $3000 purchase.
Not facetious at all. I'm an early adopter, ordering the top-end model, whatever it happened to be. Now they come out with a new top-end, and mine is lost somewhere in my bureaucracy at work, and I don't know if I'll be able to change it. It's just dumb planning on their part. I'd rather get what I order than be "surprised" with a $3000 purchase.
Ah, so you're problem with this is that the high-end configuration just got significantly more expensive? Then I can understand your pain. While this is unfortunate for you, I don't think it will be a big problem for that many people. Most will just be happy that they got faster machines at no additional expense.
As someone mentioned earlier, the bigger news might be the gap that is now available for ibooks and possibly mac minis (the $699 version) to get a duo without stepping on the pro model's toes.
As an Intel iMac buyer this torques me a little bit. One of the reasons I bought the 17" iMac was I didn't want to pay the premium for a laptop AND get a slower processor. With this bump, I could have bought a machine nearly equivalent to an iMac for "only" $5-600 more.
I think we should be watching for speed bumps and BTO options on the iMacs real soon now, too.
Maybe I'll be able to drop a faster CPU in my iMac in a couple years.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Nice planning Apple.
You're being facetious here, aren't you? I mean, clearly Apple was being conservative in their estimates on how good yields Intel would have. So if Intel couldn't deliver enough top-speed chips; Apple wouldn't have to downgrade their machines or face long shipping delays. This was a good call by Apple. And a pleasant surprise for all those early adopters.
Originally posted by BRussell
Nice planning Apple.
I'll say: 66.37 ( +1.66 )
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I had a weird feeling you were whining about the speedbump being the logical solution to somekind of problem.
It is. That of not being competitive against Windows laptops which are almost all coming out at 1.83 and 2.0Ghz. Look at Toshiba's Tecra range for instance. They've mostly skipped the 1.6 but for low end models with 40GB hard drives.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It is. That of not being competitive against Windows laptops which are almost all coming out at 1.83 and 2.0Ghz. Look at Toshiba's Tecra range for instance. They've mostly skipped the 1.6 but for low end models with 40GB hard drives.
Yeah but where is that magical computer that isn't thicker than the MacBook Pro?
Originally posted by Nautical
You're being facetious here, aren't you? I mean, clearly Apple was being conservative in their estimates on how good yields Intel would have. So if Intel couldn't deliver enough top-speed chips; Apple wouldn't have to downgrade their machines or face long shipping delays. This was a good call by Apple. And a pleasant surprise for all those early adopters.
Not facetious at all. I'm an early adopter, ordering the top-end model, whatever it happened to be. Now they come out with a new top-end, and mine is lost somewhere in my bureaucracy at work, and I don't know if I'll be able to change it. It's just dumb planning on their part. I'd rather get what I order than be "surprised" with a $3000 purchase.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'll say: 66.37 ( +1.66 )
There's a 300 mhz difference between the old top end and the new, Apple fanboy. They screwed up.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Yeah but where is that magical computer that isn't thicker than the MacBook Pro?
Answered that a few posts back. Do keep up. Sony SZ160.
Originally posted by BRussell
There's a 300 mhz difference between the old top end and the new, Apple fanboy. They screwed up.
It could have been intentional to boost AAPL. You don't know. :P
Do shut up.
Originally posted by BRussell
Not facetious at all. I'm an early adopter, ordering the top-end model, whatever it happened to be. Now they come out with a new top-end, and mine is lost somewhere in my bureaucracy at work, and I don't know if I'll be able to change it. It's just dumb planning on their part. I'd rather get what I order than be "surprised" with a $3000 purchase.
Ah, so you're problem with this is that the high-end configuration just got significantly more expensive? Then I can understand your pain. While this is unfortunate for you, I don't think it will be a big problem for that many people. Most will just be happy that they got faster machines at no additional expense.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Answered that a few posts back. Do keep up. Sony SZ160.
Sorry but 1.5 inches is not smaller than 1 inch. Go back to grade school. Do not collect 200 dollars.
edit: Sony's site says 1.3 inches. Other sites say 1.5.
Originally posted by Booga
I guess they had to open up a little room at the bottom to differentiate the upcoming iBook?
Only if you're expecting dual-core iBooks. Which I'm certainly not. Rather it could be to open up to a dual-core 13" MacBook Pro.
I think we should be watching for speed bumps and BTO options on the iMacs real soon now, too.
Maybe I'll be able to drop a faster CPU in my iMac in a couple years.
- Jasen.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
When Apple was with Motorola/Freescale, they were forced to remove the top-end and add a new lower low-end.
With the transition, Apple is able to remove the low-end and add a higher top-end.
Oh have the times changed.
Yeah, really.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, really.
Sekrit...identity...revealed...must hide.
And I thought I'd have to wait a while longer for my "I told you so".
Originally posted by Slotracer152
I'm on the phone with them now trying to upgrade 1.83 (now 2.0) that is supposed to ship tomorrow to a 2.16. I'll let you guys know how this goes.
Please do, i feel like a moron having ordered it some weeks ago.. i wan't the fastest one!!