I've read repeatedly that there won't be a 12" MBP at all. Do the people saying that mean there won't be any "small" mbp? Or that there will be a 13" instead?
I got my hands on a MBP yesterday, it was much bigger than I expected, because of the wide screen. Having seen how big it is I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't make one in a smaller form factor.
I still think new lappies could be announced Tuesday. Rumour sites were reporting NO VIDEO IPOD until the last minute back in October. They were wrong.
As I have said, Intel integrated graphics used to suck. Full stop. That is, however, changing. Obviously for high end applications, like the latest games or pro apps like Motion (note that Photoshop actually does not use the GPU, so that doesn't include all pro apps), a high end graphics card is still a must.
But for entry level hardware, there is little reason to not look seriously at integrated graphics at this point.
As far as "will need their own dedicated GPU", Intel does provide that, though it is (granted) a less powerful one compared to the latest graphics card, and it does not have its own dedicated video memory, but that doesn't mean it won't run Quartz Extreme or 2D Extreme.
Ye of little faith. It is definitely possible using a low power processor like the Centrino
Centrino is not a processor. It's a platform, encompassing Intel-branded processors, chipsets and graphics card (usually integrated).
A low-power, low-voltage 1.5 Pentim M would probably give you about 8 hours of battery life, provided the battery is a high-capacity one. Single core, 32-bit. 8)
Again, I would like to stress that even though Intel's Integrated Graphics no longer suck as badly as it used to, this is obviously still a low end solution, and would ONLY be seen in entry level products. For example, a Mac mini around $500 with a 1.67 GHz Core Duo and Integrated Graphics (like GMA900) would be an impressive machine. At the same time, it won't be a gaming or video editing machine.
I guess Apple could also come out with different versions of the Mac mini, the cheapest one coming with integrated graphics, with a more expensive version that has a higher end GPU.
I doubt a $500 Mac mini will have a Core Duo, unless Apple has bit the bullet and is ready to bleed money for the sake of marketshare.
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").
Who knows; after all, the Core Solo isn't that much cheaper.
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.
8 hour battery life?!?!? Using a bewolf cluster of batteries aye?
If you look at the 3lb portables from Sony and others, they use the ULV processors and integrated graphics, and claim 7-8 hours battery life. They aren't high performance in terms of how fast they get something done, but there are people that are willing to trade it for lower weight and better battery performance.
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").
No, selling at a loss and make it up for volume isn't going to work for this business model, because that too often translates to volume losses if the volumes aren't enough to help them push costs down enough. What smart companies sometimes do is reduce their margins a bit, still make a profit per unit but make it up in volume.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.
It is a huge amount for the base unit but not so bad for a fully decked-out mini. A BTO upgrade to Duo could be pretty lucrative for Apple, double the processors for only $100 when their actual costs would be a very tiny fraction of that, with plenty of margin to take to the bank.
The development systems were P4 based, and I think the stock units had integrated graphics. Supposedly one of the updates did allow certain graphics upgrades though.
The P4 chips get ragged on a lot but they are actually pretty good chips, the biggest downside was their power draw.
A BTO upgrade to Duo could be pretty lucrative for Apple, double the processors for only $100 when their actual costs would be a very small fraction of that, with plenty of margin to take to the bank.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Seemingly getting "twice" the computer for only another hundred bucks and landing Apple almost $100 extra net gain on each mini sold with the upgrade. The upgrade would be very appealing to consumers by thinking they are getting a huge gain for a small price as well as to power users who understand they are getting soaked a little bit but want the power in a very compact desktop.
If Apple were to upgrade the MacBook Pro when they announce the MacBook they would probably just boost the BTO model from 2.16 to 2.33 GHz. However, I think they would more likely reserve the 2.33 GHz processor for the 17" model.
i guess apple will keep the price points and include 64/128 MB low end graphic card ...
MacBook Pro has 256MB BTO VRAM, means apple not going to compromise price point and quality ...
then again we could see cheap cheap MacBook for $799 - is it not competitor to Mac Mini? (Without screen)?
i totally disagree with the integrated graphics idea - some the PC vendor save small money may be 20 - 50 bucks ??? (in large quantities i mean) with lots of performance degrade ...
IMHO personally i do not like integrated graphics in any Mac.
$999 for an iBook with 9200 or $949 for the same thing with intel integrated? I can tell you what most would buy...
i wouldn't buy either for more than $700..
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
For example, a Mac mini around $500 with a 1.67 GHz Core Duo and Integrated Graphics (like GMA900) would be an impressive machine.
steve: "behold the new mac mini, up to 4 times faster! *cough* except gfx-performance which will be only half as fast...*cough*"
i dont really see how you guys can agrue that apple should pair a $200 cpu with a 'almost-free gpu'...?
a x300 or-something shared memory gpu would be a tiny bit more expensive, but would (at least) match the performance of what it's supposed to be an improvement of.
Comments
Originally posted by gar
I hope not. Too much form over function.
err... we are still talking about Apple, right?
I got my hands on a MBP yesterday, it was much bigger than I expected, because of the wide screen. Having seen how big it is I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't make one in a smaller form factor.
I still think new lappies could be announced Tuesday. Rumour sites were reporting NO VIDEO IPOD until the last minute back in October. They were wrong.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Quartz Extreme and 2D Extreme will be standard moving forward.
They will need their own dedicate GPU.
Check out http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1617350,00.asp
As I have said, Intel integrated graphics used to suck. Full stop. That is, however, changing. Obviously for high end applications, like the latest games or pro apps like Motion (note that Photoshop actually does not use the GPU, so that doesn't include all pro apps), a high end graphics card is still a must.
But for entry level hardware, there is little reason to not look seriously at integrated graphics at this point.
As far as "will need their own dedicated GPU", Intel does provide that, though it is (granted) a less powerful one compared to the latest graphics card, and it does not have its own dedicated video memory, but that doesn't mean it won't run Quartz Extreme or 2D Extreme.
Originally posted by ryanh
Ye of little faith. It is definitely possible using a low power processor like the Centrino
Centrino is not a processor. It's a platform, encompassing Intel-branded processors, chipsets and graphics card (usually integrated).
A low-power, low-voltage 1.5 Pentim M would probably give you about 8 hours of battery life, provided the battery is a high-capacity one. Single core, 32-bit. 8)
I guess Apple could also come out with different versions of the Mac mini, the cheapest one coming with integrated graphics, with a more expensive version that has a higher end GPU.
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Remember that Apple's Intel "devkit" had Intel integrated graphics, and judging by reports, it was pretty spiffy.
Checked Dell.com lately? Most of their computers feature integrated graphics, even quite expensive laptops in the $1500+ range.
They also had Pentium 4's, didn't they?
Besides, when has Dell ever been associated with quality? Expensive != Quality
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I doubt a $500 Mac mini will have a Core Duo, unless Apple has bit the bullet and is ready to bleed money for the sake of marketshare.
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Who knows; after all, the Core Solo isn't that much cheaper.
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.
Originally posted by a_greer
8 hour battery life?!?!? Using a bewolf cluster of batteries aye?
If you look at the 3lb portables from Sony and others, they use the ULV processors and integrated graphics, and claim 7-8 hours battery life. They aren't high performance in terms of how fast they get something done, but there are people that are willing to trade it for lower weight and better battery performance.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That will not happen (I am happy to say). Apple has resisted everyone's (on AI anyway) suggestion to sell some kind of "loss leader" to build market share ("sell at a loss and make it up in volume").
No, selling at a loss and make it up for volume isn't going to work for this business model, because that too often translates to volume losses if the volumes aren't enough to help them push costs down enough. What smart companies sometimes do is reduce their margins a bit, still make a profit per unit but make it up in volume.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Some quotes I heard earlier (not idea the source) suggested a price differential of $25-50. That is 5-10% of the retail cost of the Mac mini. That is a huge amount.
It is a huge amount for the base unit but not so bad for a fully decked-out mini. A BTO upgrade to Duo could be pretty lucrative for Apple, double the processors for only $100 when their actual costs would be a very tiny fraction of that, with plenty of margin to take to the bank.
Originally posted by mynamehere
They also had Pentium 4's, didn't they?
The development systems were P4 based, and I think the stock units had integrated graphics. Supposedly one of the updates did allow certain graphics upgrades though.
The P4 chips get ragged on a lot but they are actually pretty good chips, the biggest downside was their power draw.
Originally posted by JeffDM
A BTO upgrade to Duo could be pretty lucrative for Apple, double the processors for only $100 when their actual costs would be a very small fraction of that, with plenty of margin to take to the bank.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Seemingly getting "twice" the computer for only another hundred bucks and landing Apple almost $100 extra net gain on each mini sold with the upgrade. The upgrade would be very appealing to consumers by thinking they are getting a huge gain for a small price as well as to power users who understand they are getting soaked a little bit but want the power in a very compact desktop.
i guess apple will keep the price points and include 64/128 MB low end graphic card ...
MacBook Pro has 256MB BTO VRAM, means apple not going to compromise price point and quality ...
then again we could see cheap cheap MacBook for $799 - is it not competitor to Mac Mini? (Without screen)?
i totally disagree with the integrated graphics idea - some the PC vendor save small money may be 20 - 50 bucks ??? (in large quantities i mean) with lots of performance degrade ...
IMHO personally i do not like integrated graphics in any Mac.
Originally posted by a_greer
$999 for an iBook with 9200 or $949 for the same thing with intel integrated? I can tell you what most would buy...
i wouldn't buy either for more than $700..
Originally posted by Robin Hood
For example, a Mac mini around $500 with a 1.67 GHz Core Duo and Integrated Graphics (like GMA900) would be an impressive machine.
steve: "behold the new mac mini, up to 4 times faster! *cough* except gfx-performance which will be only half as fast...*cough*"
i dont really see how you guys can agrue that apple should pair a $200 cpu with a 'almost-free gpu'...?
a x300 or-something shared memory gpu would be a tiny bit more expensive, but would (at least) match the performance of what it's supposed to be an improvement of.
if half of the sales were from laptop, i suspect why apple like to release intel Mac Mini before MacBook (iBook), strange
earlier reports mentioned that Mac Book were eating up the inventory of 1.67Ghz Duo