I doubt anyone, even Apple, would pay more for a read-only drive than they would for a similar writer. Personally, I really don't care, I almost never write DVDs, my storage is all done over the LAN.
Jeff what I mean is they'd save money by dropping what ever contract they have, not that the price of the drives is higher.
If different contracts were required from X-company(cuz I'm not sure who they are)for dvd burners and another contract from Y-company for combo drives and each contracts they paid for states Z-amount for the drive.
What I was saying is if they dropped the contract with x-company and no longer needed combo drives and re-negotitated a contract with y-company for MORE dvd buners(to make up for the absense of the combo drive) then the new contract would drive the prices down and cost apple less money per buner, saving money.
If they go with Intel chipset GPU it will be across the board on whatever replace the iBook (and they WILL go with that). The benefit of putting anything else inside is minimal compared to the costs. It would give you more bang for the bucks if they installed 1 GB meomry instead.
If they go with Intel chipset GPU it will be across the board on whatever replace the iBook (and they WILL go with that). The benefit of putting anything else inside is minimal compared to the costs. It would give you more bang for the bucks if they installed 1 GB meomry instead.
Unfortunately, I too think it may be a bit much to expect that the low end Mac Book line to have anything other than some form of integrated graphics chip or something more out of date than the x1300. It's looking more like a fantasy idea than anything based on how Apple tries to operate. Otherwise, it's a much harder push to convince people to pay a lot more for not much better of a computer.
Unfortunately, I too think it may be a bit much to expect that the low end Mac Book line to have anything other than some form of integrated graphics chip or something more out of date than the x1300. It's looking more like a fantasy idea than anything based on how Apple tries to operate. Otherwise, it's a much harder push to convince people to pay a lot more for not much better of a computer.
The next version of IG will be much better. I don't remember when it;'s coming out though, but I don't think it's too far away.
I'm guessing that the 13.3" widescreen will give a little space either side of the keyboard, unlike the current 12" iBook and Powerbook. I understand that the backlit keyboard on Powerbooks works by light sensors built into the speaker grilles either side of their keyboards. So if the MacBook has speakers in the same position, they should be able to put a backlit keyboard on the MacBook (if they wanted to, Apple may see this as a pro feature!!). Would be good if they did though.
Presumably, the point of Intel Graphics processors is to grab marketshare from ATI etc. Why do they only do integrated grapics cards ? - why not go the whole hog and make the real thing - preferably real cheap?.
Why do they proceed with the current strategy? I guess these IG chips don't make them any money per see. Or is the plan to marginalise/under-cut AMD somehow.
Presumably, the point of Intel Graphics processors is to grab marketshare from ATI etc. Why do they only do integrated grapics cards ? - why not go the whole hog and make the real thing - preferably real cheap?.
Why do they proceed with the current strategy? I guess these IG chips don't make them any money per see. Or is the plan to marginalise/under-cut AMD somehow.
thanks
This has been discussed on the PC, and general interest tech sites.
Intel has competed on the high end graphics front before, but wasn't too successful.
Most machines use Intel's IG scheme. Even PC's that go for over (sometimes well over) $1,000 use it. Intel has the vast majority of the graphics market. It doesn't pay for them to go the route of ATI and Nvidia.
With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market.
NASA is pretty full up with Mac's. Almost all of the engineers have PB's.
This is definetely true. I work with a lot of people who work at NASA GSFC, and they all have Powerbooks, although those guys are all scientists. Most of the engineers who work there I found used Windows laptops.
My work as well will soon be moving over to Macs, mainly due to myself I am proud to admit.
....Most machines use Intel's IG scheme. Even PC's that go for over (sometimes well over) $1,000 use it. Intel has the vast majority of the graphics market. It doesn't pay for them to go the route of ATI and Nvidia....With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market.
Integrated Graphics are simply for people that do not (and cannot because IG is total crap when it comes to games) play games. I've seen market share numbers of Intel IG 50% with ATI and nVidia each at 25%.
I apologise for not having more concrete details but we are looking at GMA900 and 950s doing 3-5fps, with nVidia 6200LE and ATI xpress200 doing 10-15fps at low detail settings.
So I really really don't know what is going on with the bottom end of the graphics card situation. To play any modern game you need at least a 6600 nVidia or 9600/ x1300/ x1600 ATI. I think anyone that buys a PC with low-spec graphics will realise they can't play any games and either pony up the cash for a decent graphics card -OR- get a console*. I don't know how Dell or other manufacturers can sell their wares and people that want to play games realising how unable they are to play it and being really dissapointed.
The fact though is probably a huge amount of Integrated Graphics machines are simply bought and used by people that don't intend to play the latest 3d games.
"With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market." -- This is an acute observation that IMHO holds water. the Lite low-end versions of nVidia and ATI cards are actually pretty useless and just enough at this stage for gamers to get about 15fps at the lowest detail settings and to brag about having an nVidia or ATI card. IG might be able to close this gap over the course of this year but actually it depends on what Intel comes up with and if they really want to be able to deliver some sort of sensible 3D game performance.
[i]I don't know how Dell or other manufacturers can sell their wares and people that want to play games realising how unable they are to play it and being really dissapointed.
The fact though is probably a huge amount of Integrated Graphics machines are simply bought and used by people that don't intend to play the latest 3d games.
The people that want to use a computer to play a lot of games probably wouldn't bother with an overall low end system anyway.
Despite what the gamers would try to perpetrate, there are far more non-gamers than gamers. I would bet that most computers aren't used for games more taxing than solitaire. For home use, there are a lot of gamers, but there are a lot more people that don't bother with it. For business use, game play is generally not allowed anyway. The people in a business that needs 3D capabilities are more likely to have regular PC workstations or at least a better overall computer anyway.
....Most machines use Intel's IG scheme. Even PC's that go for over (sometimes well over) $1,000 use it. Intel has the vast majority of the graphics market. It doesn't pay for them to go the route of ATI and Nvidia....With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market.
Integrated Graphics are simply for people that do not (and cannot because IG is total crap when it comes to games) play games. I've seen market share numbers of Intel IG 50% with ATI and nVidia each at 25%.
I apologise for not having more concrete details but we are looking at GMA900 and 950s doing 3-5fps, with nVidia 6200LE and ATI xpress200 doing 10-15fps at low detail settings.
So I really really don't know what is going on with the bottom end of the graphics card situation. To play any modern game you need at least a 6600 nVidia or 9600/ x1300/ x1600 ATI. I think anyone that buys a PC with low-spec graphics will realise they can't play any games and either pony up the cash for a decent graphics card -OR- get a console*. I don't know how Dell or other manufacturers can sell their wares and people that want to play games realising how unable they are to play it and being really dissapointed.
The fact though is probably a huge amount of Integrated Graphics machines are simply bought and used by people that don't intend to play the latest 3d games.
"With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market." -- This is an acute observation that IMHO holds water. the Lite low-end versions of nVidia and ATI cards are actually pretty useless and just enough at this stage for gamers to get about 15fps at the lowest detail settings and to brag about having an nVidia or ATI card. IG might be able to close this gap over the course of this year but actually it depends on what Intel comes up with and if they really want to be able to deliver some sort of sensible 3D game performance.
*subtly referencing the PC vs Console thread
Look at Dell, you'll be surprised at the machines that come with IG. Most business machines, for example need nothing more than IG.
Look at Dell, you'll be surprised at the machines that come with IG. Most business machines, for example need nothing more than IG.
Precisely. It's the business machines. It was a smart move on Intel's part to realise, hey, wait a minute, why let the profits go to ATI and nVidia (and 3dfx ) when it comes to the graphics? Same with network card, motherboard, etc..... Deliver the whole shebang one shot -- motherboard, cpu, networking, graphics. Let Dell case-it-up and there you go -- your stock standard Winblows rubbish (well I guess it serves its purpose properly in the real world) business PC.
We've seen the headlines for this already, but this news article has some good detail as to where Apple is going to for parts for it's new "MacBook" 13.3".
Also, at the end of the article is an interesting comment from Quanta, who makes the MBP's, as to how many they can ship this year ? 1 million!
If that number is an expected number to manufacture by them, then that would show that the MBP is successful indeed.
Comments
Originally posted by JeffDM
I doubt anyone, even Apple, would pay more for a read-only drive than they would for a similar writer. Personally, I really don't care, I almost never write DVDs, my storage is all done over the LAN.
Jeff what I mean is they'd save money by dropping what ever contract they have, not that the price of the drives is higher.
If different contracts were required from X-company(cuz I'm not sure who they are)for dvd burners and another contract from Y-company for combo drives and each contracts they paid for states Z-amount for the drive.
What I was saying is if they dropped the contract with x-company and no longer needed combo drives and re-negotitated a contract with y-company for MORE dvd buners(to make up for the absense of the combo drive) then the new contract would drive the prices down and cost apple less money per buner, saving money.
That's what I was suggesting.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
That's what the x13/1400 are for.
What I'd like to see:
Low end
1.5ghz core solo
64mb x1300
combo drive
$999
High end
1.67ghz core Duo
128mb x1400
Superdrive
$1299
Here's how I see it:
Low end (MacBook, plastic enclosure)
1.66GHz Core Solo
13.3" 1280x800
Integrated Graphics
HD60/Combo
$999
Midrange (MacBook, plastic enclosure)
1.66GHz Core Duo ($100 premium)
13.3" 1280x800
X1300/64MB ($100 premium)
HD80/Superdrive ($100 premium)
$1299
High end (MacBook Pro, alu enclosure)
1.66GHz Core Duo
13.3" 1280x800
X1600/128MB ($50 premium)
HD80/Superdrive
Enclosure/ExpressCard slot/Dual-Link DVI ($150 premium)
$1499
but it also could be:
1.83GHz Core Duo ($50 premium)
13.3" 1280x800
X1600/128MB ($50 premium)
HD80/Superdrive
Enclosure/Dual-Link DVI ($100 premium)
Originally posted by Anders
If they go with Intel chipset GPU it will be across the board on whatever replace the iBook (and they WILL go with that). The benefit of putting anything else inside is minimal compared to the costs. It would give you more bang for the bucks if they installed 1 GB meomry instead.
Unfortunately, I too think it may be a bit much to expect that the low end Mac Book line to have anything other than some form of integrated graphics chip or something more out of date than the x1300. It's looking more like a fantasy idea than anything based on how Apple tries to operate. Otherwise, it's a much harder push to convince people to pay a lot more for not much better of a computer.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Unfortunately, I too think it may be a bit much to expect that the low end Mac Book line to have anything other than some form of integrated graphics chip or something more out of date than the x1300. It's looking more like a fantasy idea than anything based on how Apple tries to operate. Otherwise, it's a much harder push to convince people to pay a lot more for not much better of a computer.
The next version of IG will be much better. I don't remember when it;'s coming out though, but I don't think it's too far away.
Originally posted by melgross
NASA is pretty full up with Mac's. Almost all of the engineers have PB's.
The team handling all the images from the newly arrived Mars Reconnassaince Orbiter at Mars all use Apple hardware:
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/first_i...CT0087-med.jpg
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/first_i...s/rich-med.jpg
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/first_images/
Originally posted by melgross
The next version of IG will be much better. I don't remember when it;'s coming out though, but I don't think it's too far away.
I believe you're talking about the GMA965 chipset that will come out with the Woodcrest/Conroe chipset.
Presumably, the point of Intel Graphics processors is to grab marketshare from ATI etc. Why do they only do integrated grapics cards ? - why not go the whole hog and make the real thing - preferably real cheap?.
Why do they proceed with the current strategy? I guess these IG chips don't make them any money per see. Or is the plan to marginalise/under-cut AMD somehow.
thanks
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I believe you're talking about the GMA965 chipset that will come out with the Woodcrest/Conroe chipset.
That sounds right.
Originally posted by OfficerDigby
Ha! another chance to ask my question.
Presumably, the point of Intel Graphics processors is to grab marketshare from ATI etc. Why do they only do integrated grapics cards ? - why not go the whole hog and make the real thing - preferably real cheap?.
Why do they proceed with the current strategy? I guess these IG chips don't make them any money per see. Or is the plan to marginalise/under-cut AMD somehow.
thanks
This has been discussed on the PC, and general interest tech sites.
Intel has competed on the high end graphics front before, but wasn't too successful.
Most machines use Intel's IG scheme. Even PC's that go for over (sometimes well over) $1,000 use it. Intel has the vast majority of the graphics market. It doesn't pay for them to go the route of ATI and Nvidia.
With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market.
Originally posted by melgross
NASA is pretty full up with Mac's. Almost all of the engineers have PB's.
This is definetely true. I work with a lot of people who work at NASA GSFC, and they all have Powerbooks, although those guys are all scientists. Most of the engineers who work there I found used Windows laptops.
My work as well will soon be moving over to Macs, mainly due to myself I am proud to admit.
....Most machines use Intel's IG scheme. Even PC's that go for over (sometimes well over) $1,000 use it. Intel has the vast majority of the graphics market. It doesn't pay for them to go the route of ATI and Nvidia....With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market.
Integrated Graphics are simply for people that do not (and cannot because IG is total crap when it comes to games) play games. I've seen market share numbers of Intel IG 50% with ATI and nVidia each at 25%.
I apologise for not having more concrete details but we are looking at GMA900 and 950s doing 3-5fps, with nVidia 6200LE and ATI xpress200 doing 10-15fps at low detail settings.
So I really really don't know what is going on with the bottom end of the graphics card situation. To play any modern game you need at least a 6600 nVidia or 9600/ x1300/ x1600 ATI. I think anyone that buys a PC with low-spec graphics will realise they can't play any games and either pony up the cash for a decent graphics card -OR- get a console*. I don't know how Dell or other manufacturers can sell their wares and people that want to play games realising how unable they are to play it and being really dissapointed.
The fact though is probably a huge amount of Integrated Graphics machines are simply bought and used by people that don't intend to play the latest 3d games.
"With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market." -- This is an acute observation that IMHO holds water. the Lite low-end versions of nVidia and ATI cards are actually pretty useless and just enough at this stage for gamers to get about 15fps at the lowest detail settings and to brag about having an nVidia or ATI card. IG might be able to close this gap over the course of this year but actually it depends on what Intel comes up with and if they really want to be able to deliver some sort of sensible 3D game performance.
*subtly referencing the PC vs Console thread
Originally posted by sunilraman
[i]I don't know how Dell or other manufacturers can sell their wares and people that want to play games realising how unable they are to play it and being really dissapointed.
The fact though is probably a huge amount of Integrated Graphics machines are simply bought and used by people that don't intend to play the latest 3d games.
The people that want to use a computer to play a lot of games probably wouldn't bother with an overall low end system anyway.
Despite what the gamers would try to perpetrate, there are far more non-gamers than gamers. I would bet that most computers aren't used for games more taxing than solitaire. For home use, there are a lot of gamers, but there are a lot more people that don't bother with it. For business use, game play is generally not allowed anyway. The people in a business that needs 3D capabilities are more likely to have regular PC workstations or at least a better overall computer anyway.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
....Most machines use Intel's IG scheme. Even PC's that go for over (sometimes well over) $1,000 use it. Intel has the vast majority of the graphics market. It doesn't pay for them to go the route of ATI and Nvidia....With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market.
Integrated Graphics are simply for people that do not (and cannot because IG is total crap when it comes to games) play games. I've seen market share numbers of Intel IG 50% with ATI and nVidia each at 25%.
I apologise for not having more concrete details but we are looking at GMA900 and 950s doing 3-5fps, with nVidia 6200LE and ATI xpress200 doing 10-15fps at low detail settings.
So I really really don't know what is going on with the bottom end of the graphics card situation. To play any modern game you need at least a 6600 nVidia or 9600/ x1300/ x1600 ATI. I think anyone that buys a PC with low-spec graphics will realise they can't play any games and either pony up the cash for a decent graphics card -OR- get a console*. I don't know how Dell or other manufacturers can sell their wares and people that want to play games realising how unable they are to play it and being really dissapointed.
The fact though is probably a huge amount of Integrated Graphics machines are simply bought and used by people that don't intend to play the latest 3d games.
"With IG getting better, it will cut into the lower rung of the separate card market." -- This is an acute observation that IMHO holds water. the Lite low-end versions of nVidia and ATI cards are actually pretty useless and just enough at this stage for gamers to get about 15fps at the lowest detail settings and to brag about having an nVidia or ATI card. IG might be able to close this gap over the course of this year but actually it depends on what Intel comes up with and if they really want to be able to deliver some sort of sensible 3D game performance.
*subtly referencing the PC vs Console thread
Look at Dell, you'll be surprised at the machines that come with IG. Most business machines, for example need nothing more than IG.
Look at Dell, you'll be surprised at the machines that come with IG. Most business machines, for example need nothing more than IG.
Precisely. It's the business machines. It was a smart move on Intel's part to realise, hey, wait a minute, why let the profits go to ATI and nVidia (and 3dfx
Also, at the end of the article is an interesting comment from Quanta, who makes the MBP's, as to how many they can ship this year ? 1 million!
If that number is an expected number to manufacture by them, then that would show that the MBP is successful indeed.
http://news.cens.com/php/getnews.php...12.htm&daily=1
Oh, and we can see where analysts get their info from. They speak to these people long before we see it in print.
now that's what i call totally rad, and sweet. i'd grab two for me and my wife and hope that parallels gets their groove on.