Apple is selling MacBooks to more than just education. They should however offer computers without iSight to those who need them that way.
The MiniMac is similar spec and aimed at a similar market yet does not come with one. I would think that with the lower range such as the iBook and minimac that the aim is to strip away such unnessessary features such as the isight camera (and for the iBook the lighted keyboard) to keep costs down and the difference noticeable.
The MiniMac is similar spec and aimed at a similar market yet does not come with one. I would think that with the lower range such as the iBook and minimac that the aim is to strip away such unnessessary features such as the isight camera (and for the iBook the lighted keyboard) to keep costs down and the difference noticeable.
Where, on a Mac mini, would you suggest they put an iSight?
Where, on a Mac mini, would you suggest they put an iSight?
I considered this when posting, however volume wise a minimac is on par with an iBook and fitting an iSight into a MiniMac would be just as difficult or easy as a laptop.
Keep in mind that the MiniMac is small and thus easy to place in a good position if it did have a built in iSight.
Intel is efficiently producing 99.8% of its GMA chip sets with a full DVI output. Apple orders .2% of its GMA chip sets for a mini DVI output breaks the efficiency of the line. That's going to cost more money to artificially create a difference between the MacBook and MB Pro.
I'm sorry, but this thinking doesn't make sense to me. Mini DVI is just a different physical connector arrangement that only needs an adapter to work with "full" DVI. Unless there is something that I don't know about, the "mini" part is just to save space on the edge of the laptop, not to change the TDMA signalling or anything quack like that, at least I hope not.
I don't know about this. I think we'll see a line-up similar to the mini: low end model with Solo, higher end model with Duo.
The iBook line has often been a minor step up from the mini in terms of the core components, the last iBook had a better graphics chip and a slightly faster chip. When the mini got an ATI 9200 , iBook got a 9550 I think? When mini got a 1.25 & 1.42GHz G4, the low end iBook got 1.33 and 1.5GHz.
I'm sorry, but this thinking doesn't make sense to me. Mini DVI is just a different physical connector arrangement that only needs an adapter to work with "full" DVI.
Yes mini DVI is what you explained. I'm not saying its anything different.
But the physical connection has to be manufactured nonetheless.
If Apple is the only (or even few) OEM requesting mini DVI there has to be some additional cost to Intel to pull those few chips sets from the normal production line to fit them with mini connectors instead of full DVI connectors.
This assertion may be incorrect, does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
I'd guess that the mini-DVI has nothing to do with the Intel chip and everything to do with whoever makes the MacBook motherboard. This may be Intel, but I'm guessing the Motherboard will not be a standard Intel mobo anyway.
Cute, but you may be missing the point since none of these suggested solutions are acceptable to DoD/DSS under Chapter 8 Industrial Security Guidelines. Minor point, but this is required in many industrial and academic environments. Without specific approval most current shipping Macs as well as cell phones, PDS, pagers and geek-sticks remain on the prohibited list. PCs are generally allowed because these devices can be disabled in the BIOS and this is a recognized, documented and approved security procedure under Chapter 8.
Man, what is it with the noobs vs. the mods, lately?
I wouldn't say that, I raised an important point - although this new infomation on the spec of the ibook may be from a good source keep in mind that non of the important releases from apple (macbook pro, boot camp) have been predicted correctly so far and there is no reason to assume that these specs posted today are correct
I wouldn't say that, I raised an important point - although this new infomation on the spec of the ibook may be from a good source keep in mind that non of the important releases from apple (macbook pro, boot camp) have been predicted correctly so far
The iBook line has often been a minor step up from the mini in terms of the core components, the last iBook had a better graphics chip and a slightly faster chip. When the mini got an ATI 9200 , iBook got a 9550 I think? When mini got a 1.25 & 1.42GHz G5, the low end iBook got 1.33 and 1.5GHz.
Does anyone else see the irony in this? At the same time they decide to be more inclusive, with Boot Camp, they try their best to concentrate the customer's focus onto "Mac." Mac this, Mac that. Maybe this is where Steve wants the company heading. If they lose the Apple Corps trial, they'll just become Mac Computer Corporation and iTunes Corporation, no more "Apple" anything.
The second link predicted, with stunning accuracy, that the iMac and the MacBook Pro would be introduced in January, with MacMini release in the "spring". The only thing the linked article was wrong about was the introduction of the MacBook alongside the new MacMini. However, due to the unexpected delays detailed in the latest AppleInsider predictions, it looks like these delays were unexpected by Apple and due to resource shortages. If AppleInsider maintains the track record established by the above two articles, we should see the new MacBooks by the beginning of May at the latest.
Were it not for the prediction about the Intel iMac, I might not have held out for the Intel iMac. The AppleInsider prediction lingered in my mind, and I was quite (but not completely) pleasantly surprised when it was introduced. I'm typing this on my 20 inch Intel iMac.
Cute, but you may be missing the point since none of these suggested solutions are acceptable to DoD/DSS under Chapter 8 Industrial Security Guidelines. Minor point, but this is required in many industrial and academic environments. Without specific approval most current shipping Macs as well as cell phones, PDS, pagers and geek-sticks remain on the prohibited list. PCs are generally allowed because these devices can be disabled in the BIOS and this is a recognized, documented and approved security procedure under Chapter 8.
How is a camera supposedly disabled in BIOS necessarily trustable? Is that setting checked on every entry into a secure area? Is there any checking to see whether it has been tampered? Despite what some quack .gov or .mil document says, I don't see how a "disabled" camera is more trustworthy than a destroyed camera.
Comments
Originally posted by TenoBell
Yes it will.
Apple is selling MacBooks to more than just education. They should however offer computers without iSight to those who need them that way.
The MiniMac is similar spec and aimed at a similar market yet does not come with one. I would think that with the lower range such as the iBook and minimac that the aim is to strip away such unnessessary features such as the isight camera (and for the iBook the lighted keyboard) to keep costs down and the difference noticeable.
Originally posted by fezzasus
The MiniMac is similar spec and aimed at a similar market yet does not come with one. I would think that with the lower range such as the iBook and minimac that the aim is to strip away such unnessessary features such as the isight camera (and for the iBook the lighted keyboard) to keep costs down and the difference noticeable.
Where, on a Mac mini, would you suggest they put an iSight?
Originally posted by fahlman
Where, on a Mac mini, would you suggest they put an iSight?
I considered this when posting, however volume wise a minimac is on par with an iBook and fitting an iSight into a MiniMac would be just as difficult or easy as a laptop.
Keep in mind that the MiniMac is small and thus easy to place in a good position if it did have a built in iSight.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Intel is efficiently producing 99.8% of its GMA chip sets with a full DVI output. Apple orders .2% of its GMA chip sets for a mini DVI output breaks the efficiency of the line. That's going to cost more money to artificially create a difference between the MacBook and MB Pro.
I'm sorry, but this thinking doesn't make sense to me. Mini DVI is just a different physical connector arrangement that only needs an adapter to work with "full" DVI. Unless there is something that I don't know about, the "mini" part is just to save space on the edge of the laptop, not to change the TDMA signalling or anything quack like that, at least I hope not.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I don't know about this. I think we'll see a line-up similar to the mini: low end model with Solo, higher end model with Duo.
The iBook line has often been a minor step up from the mini in terms of the core components, the last iBook had a better graphics chip and a slightly faster chip. When the mini got an ATI 9200 , iBook got a 9550 I think? When mini got a 1.25 & 1.42GHz G4, the low end iBook got 1.33 and 1.5GHz.
I'm sorry, but this thinking doesn't make sense to me. Mini DVI is just a different physical connector arrangement that only needs an adapter to work with "full" DVI.
Yes mini DVI is what you explained. I'm not saying its anything different.
But the physical connection has to be manufactured nonetheless.
If Apple is the only (or even few) OEM requesting mini DVI there has to be some additional cost to Intel to pull those few chips sets from the normal production line to fit them with mini connectors instead of full DVI connectors.
This assertion may be incorrect, does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
I'd guess that the mini-DVI has nothing to do with the Intel chip and everything to do with whoever makes the MacBook motherboard. This may be Intel, but I'm guessing the Motherboard will not be a standard Intel mobo anyway.
And I agree this is highly likely that Apple will use mini DVI in the MacBook.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The easy solution:
Stick one of those over it. Voila.
For a more sturdy solution:
And if you *REALLY* want it gone...
Cute, but you may be missing the point since none of these suggested solutions are acceptable to DoD/DSS under Chapter 8 Industrial Security Guidelines. Minor point, but this is required in many industrial and academic environments. Without specific approval most current shipping Macs as well as cell phones, PDS, pagers and geek-sticks remain on the prohibited list. PCs are generally allowed because these devices can be disabled in the BIOS and this is a recognized, documented and approved security procedure under Chapter 8.
Originally posted by addabox
Man, what is it with the noobs vs. the mods, lately?
I wouldn't say that, I raised an important point - although this new infomation on the spec of the ibook may be from a good source keep in mind that non of the important releases from apple (macbook pro, boot camp) have been predicted correctly so far and there is no reason to assume that these specs posted today are correct
Originally posted by fezzasus
I wouldn't say that, I raised an important point - although this new infomation on the spec of the ibook may be from a good source keep in mind that non of the important releases from apple (macbook pro, boot camp) have been predicted correctly so far
Wrong.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1359
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1368
Originally posted by JeffDM
The iBook line has often been a minor step up from the mini in terms of the core components, the last iBook had a better graphics chip and a slightly faster chip. When the mini got an ATI 9200 , iBook got a 9550 I think? When mini got a 1.25 & 1.42GHz G5, the low end iBook got 1.33 and 1.5GHz.
Oh sure, you got one of the G5 minis. It figures.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Oh sure, you got one of the G5 minis. It figures.
Oops, I let that secret out. It's hot. Very hot. It caught fire a couple times too.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Wrong.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1359
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1368
The second link predicted, with stunning accuracy, that the iMac and the MacBook Pro would be introduced in January, with MacMini release in the "spring". The only thing the linked article was wrong about was the introduction of the MacBook alongside the new MacMini. However, due to the unexpected delays detailed in the latest AppleInsider predictions, it looks like these delays were unexpected by Apple and due to resource shortages. If AppleInsider maintains the track record established by the above two articles, we should see the new MacBooks by the beginning of May at the latest.
Were it not for the prediction about the Intel iMac, I might not have held out for the Intel iMac. The AppleInsider prediction lingered in my mind, and I was quite (but not completely) pleasantly surprised when it was introduced. I'm typing this on my 20 inch Intel iMac.
Originally posted by xUKHCx
frontrow will be in all the new macs that are released.
Doubt the power mac replacment will have it
Originally posted by Kickaha
The easy solution:
Stick one of those over it. Voila.
For a more sturdy solution:
And if you *REALLY* want it gone...
HA lol
Originally posted by macinmurphy
Cute, but you may be missing the point since none of these suggested solutions are acceptable to DoD/DSS under Chapter 8 Industrial Security Guidelines. Minor point, but this is required in many industrial and academic environments. Without specific approval most current shipping Macs as well as cell phones, PDS, pagers and geek-sticks remain on the prohibited list. PCs are generally allowed because these devices can be disabled in the BIOS and this is a recognized, documented and approved security procedure under Chapter 8.
How is a camera supposedly disabled in BIOS necessarily trustable? Is that setting checked on every entry into a secure area? Is there any checking to see whether it has been tampered? Despite what some quack .gov or .mil document says, I don't see how a "disabled" camera is more trustworthy than a destroyed camera.