Seriously. Who cares about dedicated graphics cards. If you need that, you'll probably be getting a macbook pro b/c of the bigger screen anyways. Honestly, integrated graphics are fine. They save on power too. I'd take that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Well, there is no need to whine about the integrated graphics
anymore. Really, i saw the new mini in action and guess what,
the graphics are pretty fast, faster than former graphic chip
on par at least. Though, i didn't try 3D gaming.
But if you are in 3D gaming, than you shouldn't consider
Obviously, black is more desirable or else you would not care about the premium price for black. You kind of answered your own question here - the fact that you are upset means that they were right to charge a premium for black.
Does anyone know if the MacBook will power a 30" inch display at 1920*1200 resolution?
Actually that should work just fine. As far as i can tell Dual Link is not required to run the 30", its only required to hit the max res. The iBook cannot run the 30" at max res (2560x1600) but it shouldnt have any problems running it at 1920x1200.
I'm pretty impressed with these. I'd certainly pay the extra $200 for the black version. It's my favourite (non) colour. I used to have a PB 3400 years ago which I loved dearly.
Now I have to weigh up the pros and cons of selling my Aluminium Powerbook so I can get some real speed happening. Not to mention double checking to see if all the apps I need to use are Universal Binaries yet or not.
1. How good is that integrated graphics card? Is it better than the 12" PowerBook's one? I'd be totally cool with that. The 12" pb gfx is good enough for most kind of productivity.
2. Does it come in silver? Eewww for the casing coloring...
3. What's with the heat reports? Wouldn't core duo and integrated graphics card be great for keeping heat and power drain down?
But it makes sense for Apple to drop products that have low demand. Reportedly, the 12" powerbook didn't sell nearly as well as the ibooks or the other powerbooks. Most consumers thought it was too similar to the ibook and just went with that cheaper option.
Choices are great, but they should stick with the options that people are interested and shouldn't waste time and money carrying configs that are unpopular.
I could not disagree more.
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over. I'm sure that Apple's market share will then increase, but I'm not too sure by how much. When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?
Apple are the only company who make laptops that legally (and simply) run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share, (and they really should want that), they have to expand their range, and not shrink it. There is a simply massive range of hardware choice if you can put up with running Windows. Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.
I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.
e.g:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)
3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%).
Market share is important but Apple's core competencies do not appear to be geared toward capturing (and holding) large share against companies like Dell or HP.
Quote:
When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?
They took large risks to capture share under Sculley. Execution was poor but at this stage of the market is chasing larger share at the expense of margin worth while?
Or is it better to look for new markets?
Quote:
Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.
While I'll agree that Apple could afford to make an ultraportable and perhaps a desktop replacement I don't know that I would agree that Apple can afford models that don't sell well.
I'd like a tablet too but I'm not holding my breath. I'd much rather see a tablet done well than a desktop replacement that will not be very mac like in style/function.
A 9" tablet (convertible) with ULV Core Solo, next generation GMA and Matsushita battery can handle the ultra portable market. I think I'd prefer a LV Core Duo but many tablet users don't need the extra horsepower.
Quote:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
Because margins are lower at $899 and these units will cannibalize sales at the more profitable level? Arguably no iSight, no Front Row, etc doesn't provide the same kind of Apple experience if the strategy is an integrated multi-media environment that will be cornerstone in some kind of "digital lifestyle" strategy.
If they are shooting for elite branding why offer cheaper models? To chase share?
Arguably they are able to maintain a community of developers at current share levels for the markets they most care about.
Quote:
3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)
Economies of scale...plus the MBP is a stopgap laptop. Why offer large variations in a model that we all know will get a rev in the next 6 months when new intel chips are out?
Quote:
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.
I think I'd rather see a few "brilliant" machines than many "so-so" machines. Given some of the QA issues with the limited number of models I think Apple has about the right number of machines at the moment.
They took large risks to capture share under Sculley.
That was when their market share was nearer 10% IIRC. I'm talking about upping share from below 3% and permanantely reversing years of decline, which is much more important.
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
but at this stage of the market is chasing larger share at the expense of margin worth while?
If you are Dell or HP, no. If you are Apple, yes. (As Apple's margins are very high, but Dell's is low and couldn't go much lower. To increase their market share, Apple needs to go after some of the market that Dell has captured, and for Dell to increase share, they need to go after some of the market that Apple has captured. Which one of these has more potential to add significantly to the respective company's revenue and market share?)
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Economies of scale...plus the MBP is a stopgap laptop. Why offer large variations in a model that we all know will get a rev in the next 6 months when new intel chips are out?
I think I'd rather see a few "brilliant" machines than many "so-so" machines. Given some of the QA issues with the limited number of models I think Apple has about the right number of machines at the moment.
Vinea
Good point. I reaslised this after I posted. The Intel transition is not a minor thing. I will just have to renew my hope for an expanded line-up once the transition's dust has settled.
Because margins are lower at $899 and these units will cannibalize sales at the more profitable level? Arguably no iSight, no Front Row, etc doesn't provide the same kind of Apple experience if the strategy is an integrated multi-media environment that will be cornerstone in some kind of "digital lifestyle" strategy.
Not true. Say that the 1099 Macbook has a 20% or 200 profit margin. Say they put in a core solo processor ($90 cheaper) and took out iSight or put in a smaller hard drive knocking another $50 of the costs to make. They then sold this for $950. Profit is still $200 but margin is actually a little higher. The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea.
Not true. Say that the 1099 Macbook has a 20% or 200 profit margin. Say they put in a core solo processor ($90 cheaper) and took out iSight or put in a smaller hard drive knocking another $50 of the costs to make. They then sold this for $950. Profit is still $200 but margin is actually a little higher. The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea.
My suspicion with the iSight showing up everywhere is that it will be considered one of those differentiators between Apple users and PC users. All Apple users can iChat. PC users might if they have a webcam...and who lugs one of those around with a laptop? Text chat vs iChat.
Dunno if its one of those "cool once" or "always kinda cool" features.
All mac users bluetooth. Not all PC users bluetooth.
All mac users have a remote that they can promptly lose.
The Core Solos may (or may not) drop frames with 1080 playback with the GMAs. I suspect the next mini rev will drop the Solos and keep current pricing. Then consistent 1080 playback even at higher rates across the product lines.
Eh...just seems like they are setting the performance bar at a certain level and that sets the floor on pricing at the moment.
I'm not sure pricing will drop because I'm going to guess either HD-DVD or BR across the entire line about the same time processor prices drop enough to get below some of these price points.
Apple has a bead on the pent-up demand for the MacBook. Releasing only Core Duos at the 1099/1299/1499 price points will allow them to capture the premium for those who've been waiting, especially since Apple likes to limit its manufacturing risk.
Two possibilities:
1. Apple has plans for the future that really require users to have Core Duos. So rather than obsolete a Core Solo version within a year, they're going to stay higher-end. (Apple believes the buyers of the mini Core Solo at 599 will understand that their Mac will not do whatever, and be willing to buy another.)
2. Apple will release a cheaper, less capable machine once the iBook/MacBook demand dies down. Possibly in October for Christmas.
Finally, Apple's preferred route for those who want a cheaper Mac is to direct them to refurbished or clearance (old model) Macs from the Apple Store or through some vendors.
Integrated graphics are for lack of a better term suck butt, a handicap. Its funny how the worst graphics in the industry became Ok after apple started using the cheap chip. I bet they give these things away to apple for buying Intel cpu's. If you even think you like to game forget any integrated graphics machine. Enough said about that.
When I bought my car, I wanted a certain color that added 480 bucks to the cost, just for choosing the color. So, Though 150 (or 200) might be a bit steep for a new color on a computer, especially given that the iPods are the same price, I can accept that Apple chose to do this and think they will sell very well. Schools will not go for black because of price, but you can get the same power in white.
999...1099... Wow. Not a really big difference, but iBook...MacBook, A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Many times faster, larger, better screen, better apps (except no WP which is a bummer, older iBooks had AW), iSight...
The MB is 500 bucks more than a mini. For 500 bucks you get a far better CPU, a screen, iSight, a battery and PORTABILITY. A great deal.
Integrated graphics vs. a card... well, don't criticize until you actually see the machine in action, because you honestly don't know. People complained ad nauseum about the iPod's low video pixel point, but it is drop-dead great, even when thrown up on a TV. Persoanlly, I suspect that the graphics will be more than satisfactory for the majority of users. Others will move on to something else.
Some peope will complain about anything, but I think Apple has a real winner on their hands.
My suspicion with the iSight showing up everywhere is that it will be considered one of those differentiators between Apple users and PC users. All Apple users can iChat. PC users might if they have a webcam...and who lugs one of those around with a laptop? Text chat vs iChat.
Dunno if its one of those "cool once" or "always kinda cool" features.
All mac users bluetooth. Not all PC users bluetooth.
All mac users have a remote that they can promptly lose.
The Core Solos may (or may not) drop frames with 1080 playback with the GMAs. I suspect the next mini rev will drop the Solos and keep current pricing. Then consistent 1080 playback even at higher rates across the product lines.
Eh...just seems like they are setting the performance bar at a certain level and that sets the floor on pricing at the moment.
I'm not sure pricing will drop because I'm going to guess either HD-DVD or BR across the entire line about the same time processor prices drop enough to get below some of these price points.
Vinea
That's kinda my point on pricing. Many seem to think prices are going to come down in the future. I don' think so. Features will be added or specs get bumped up but prices stay the same or go up slightly.
Nice thought on the performance bar for systems. What does that mean for g4 users, if anything? In other words if a core solo won't cut it a year from now with Leopard, CS3 and new MS office, where does that leave current powerbook and iBook users?
Comments
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Well, there is no need to whine about the integrated graphics
anymore. Really, i saw the new mini in action and guess what,
the graphics are pretty fast, faster than former graphic chip
on par at least. Though, i didn't try 3D gaming.
But if you are in 3D gaming, than you shouldn't consider
Macs anyway.
Btw, congrats apple, beautyful job indeed.
Originally posted by mazzy
WHAT'S WITH THE PREMUM PRICE FOR BLACK!!??
Supply and demand. Extra cash for Apple, because some people will pay for it.
Originally posted by mazzy
WHAT'S WITH THE PREMUM PRICE FOR BLACK!!??
Obviously, black is more desirable or else you would not care about the premium price for black. You kind of answered your own question here - the fact that you are upset means that they were right to charge a premium for black.
Originally posted by matracer
All I want now is a black front row remote!
The remote is white & black on the ends, so it still matches.. Especially with the big white Apple logo on the black MB.
Originally posted by solsun
Does anyone know if the MacBook will power a 30" inch display at 1920*1200 resolution?
Actually that should work just fine. As far as i can tell Dual Link is not required to run the 30", its only required to hit the max res. The iBook cannot run the 30" at max res (2560x1600) but it shouldnt have any problems running it at 1920x1200.
Originally posted by mazzy
WHAT'S WITH THE PREMUM PRICE FOR BLACK!!??
also, the padding is to help handle complaints and/or the higher return rate
from whiners who demand that the inevitable scratches be only as visible
as with white units. reflection physics at work...
Originally posted by retiarius
also, the padding is to help handle complaints and/or the higher return rate
from whiners who demand that the inevitable scratches be only as visible
as with white units. reflection physics at work...
The MB's are matte black, so surface scratches should not be a problem like they are with the gloss black of iPod.
Now I have to weigh up the pros and cons of selling my Aluminium Powerbook so I can get some real speed happening. Not to mention double checking to see if all the apps I need to use are Universal Binaries yet or not.
Good job Apple!
1. How good is that integrated graphics card? Is it better than the 12" PowerBook's one? I'd be totally cool with that. The 12" pb gfx is good enough for most kind of productivity.
2. Does it come in silver? Eewww for the casing coloring...
3. What's with the heat reports? Wouldn't core duo and integrated graphics card be great for keeping heat and power drain down?
Praise:
Extended display!
Bright display!
Originally posted by minderbinder
But it makes sense for Apple to drop products that have low demand. Reportedly, the 12" powerbook didn't sell nearly as well as the ibooks or the other powerbooks. Most consumers thought it was too similar to the ibook and just went with that cheaper option.
Choices are great, but they should stick with the options that people are interested and shouldn't waste time and money carrying configs that are unpopular.
I could not disagree more.
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over. I'm sure that Apple's market share will then increase, but I'm not too sure by how much. When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?
Apple are the only company who make laptops that legally (and simply) run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share, (and they really should want that), they have to expand their range, and not shrink it. There is a simply massive range of hardware choice if you can put up with running Windows. Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.
I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.
e.g:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)
3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%).
Market share is important but Apple's core competencies do not appear to be geared toward capturing (and holding) large share against companies like Dell or HP.
When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?
They took large risks to capture share under Sculley. Execution was poor but at this stage of the market is chasing larger share at the expense of margin worth while?
Or is it better to look for new markets?
Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.
While I'll agree that Apple could afford to make an ultraportable and perhaps a desktop replacement I don't know that I would agree that Apple can afford models that don't sell well.
I'd like a tablet too but I'm not holding my breath. I'd much rather see a tablet done well than a desktop replacement that will not be very mac like in style/function.
A 9" tablet (convertible) with ULV Core Solo, next generation GMA and Matsushita battery can handle the ultra portable market. I think I'd prefer a LV Core Duo but many tablet users don't need the extra horsepower.
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
Because margins are lower at $899 and these units will cannibalize sales at the more profitable level? Arguably no iSight, no Front Row, etc doesn't provide the same kind of Apple experience if the strategy is an integrated multi-media environment that will be cornerstone in some kind of "digital lifestyle" strategy.
If they are shooting for elite branding why offer cheaper models? To chase share?
Arguably they are able to maintain a community of developers at current share levels for the markets they most care about.
3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)
Economies of scale...plus the MBP is a stopgap laptop. Why offer large variations in a model that we all know will get a rev in the next 6 months when new intel chips are out?
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.
I think I'd rather see a few "brilliant" machines than many "so-so" machines. Given some of the QA issues with the limited number of models I think Apple has about the right number of machines at the moment.
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
They took large risks to capture share under Sculley.
That was when their market share was nearer 10% IIRC. I'm talking about upping share from below 3% and permanantely reversing years of decline, which is much more important.
Originally posted by vinea
but at this stage of the market is chasing larger share at the expense of margin worth while?
If you are Dell or HP, no. If you are Apple, yes. (As Apple's margins are very high, but Dell's is low and couldn't go much lower. To increase their market share, Apple needs to go after some of the market that Dell has captured, and for Dell to increase share, they need to go after some of the market that Apple has captured. Which one of these has more potential to add significantly to the respective company's revenue and market share?)
Originally posted by vinea
Economies of scale...plus the MBP is a stopgap laptop. Why offer large variations in a model that we all know will get a rev in the next 6 months when new intel chips are out?
I think I'd rather see a few "brilliant" machines than many "so-so" machines. Given some of the QA issues with the limited number of models I think Apple has about the right number of machines at the moment.
Vinea
Good point. I reaslised this after I posted. The Intel transition is not a minor thing. I will just have to renew my hope for an expanded line-up once the transition's dust has settled.
Originally posted by vinea
Because margins are lower at $899 and these units will cannibalize sales at the more profitable level? Arguably no iSight, no Front Row, etc doesn't provide the same kind of Apple experience if the strategy is an integrated multi-media environment that will be cornerstone in some kind of "digital lifestyle" strategy.
Not true. Say that the 1099 Macbook has a 20% or 200 profit margin. Say they put in a core solo processor ($90 cheaper) and took out iSight or put in a smaller hard drive knocking another $50 of the costs to make. They then sold this for $950. Profit is still $200 but margin is actually a little higher. The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea.
Originally posted by backtomac
Not true. Say that the 1099 Macbook has a 20% or 200 profit margin. Say they put in a core solo processor ($90 cheaper) and took out iSight or put in a smaller hard drive knocking another $50 of the costs to make. They then sold this for $950. Profit is still $200 but margin is actually a little higher. The decision not to offer a sub $1000 Macbook puzzles me the more I think about it. They could do it but basically decided not to. I wonder if this was(is) a good idea.
My suspicion with the iSight showing up everywhere is that it will be considered one of those differentiators between Apple users and PC users. All Apple users can iChat. PC users might if they have a webcam...and who lugs one of those around with a laptop? Text chat vs iChat.
Dunno if its one of those "cool once" or "always kinda cool" features.
All mac users bluetooth. Not all PC users bluetooth.
All mac users have a remote that they can promptly lose.
The Core Solos may (or may not) drop frames with 1080 playback with the GMAs. I suspect the next mini rev will drop the Solos and keep current pricing. Then consistent 1080 playback even at higher rates across the product lines.
Eh...just seems like they are setting the performance bar at a certain level and that sets the floor on pricing at the moment.
I'm not sure pricing will drop because I'm going to guess either HD-DVD or BR across the entire line about the same time processor prices drop enough to get below some of these price points.
Vinea
Two possibilities:
1. Apple has plans for the future that really require users to have Core Duos. So rather than obsolete a Core Solo version within a year, they're going to stay higher-end. (Apple believes the buyers of the mini Core Solo at 599 will understand that their Mac will not do whatever, and be willing to buy another.)
2. Apple will release a cheaper, less capable machine once the iBook/MacBook demand dies down. Possibly in October for Christmas.
Finally, Apple's preferred route for those who want a cheaper Mac is to direct them to refurbished or clearance (old model) Macs from the Apple Store or through some vendors.
When I bought my car, I wanted a certain color that added 480 bucks to the cost, just for choosing the color. So, Though 150 (or 200) might be a bit steep for a new color on a computer, especially given that the iPods are the same price, I can accept that Apple chose to do this and think they will sell very well. Schools will not go for black because of price, but you can get the same power in white.
999...1099... Wow. Not a really big difference, but iBook...MacBook, A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Many times faster, larger, better screen, better apps (except no WP which is a bummer, older iBooks had AW), iSight...
The MB is 500 bucks more than a mini. For 500 bucks you get a far better CPU, a screen, iSight, a battery and PORTABILITY. A great deal.
Integrated graphics vs. a card... well, don't criticize until you actually see the machine in action, because you honestly don't know. People complained ad nauseum about the iPod's low video pixel point, but it is drop-dead great, even when thrown up on a TV. Persoanlly, I suspect that the graphics will be more than satisfactory for the majority of users. Others will move on to something else.
Some peope will complain about anything, but I think Apple has a real winner on their hands.
Originally posted by vinea
My suspicion with the iSight showing up everywhere is that it will be considered one of those differentiators between Apple users and PC users. All Apple users can iChat. PC users might if they have a webcam...and who lugs one of those around with a laptop? Text chat vs iChat.
Dunno if its one of those "cool once" or "always kinda cool" features.
All mac users bluetooth. Not all PC users bluetooth.
All mac users have a remote that they can promptly lose.
The Core Solos may (or may not) drop frames with 1080 playback with the GMAs. I suspect the next mini rev will drop the Solos and keep current pricing. Then consistent 1080 playback even at higher rates across the product lines.
Eh...just seems like they are setting the performance bar at a certain level and that sets the floor on pricing at the moment.
I'm not sure pricing will drop because I'm going to guess either HD-DVD or BR across the entire line about the same time processor prices drop enough to get below some of these price points.
Vinea
That's kinda my point on pricing. Many seem to think prices are going to come down in the future. I don' think so. Features will be added or specs get bumped up but prices stay the same or go up slightly.
Nice thought on the performance bar for systems. What does that mean for g4 users, if anything? In other words if a core solo won't cut it a year from now with Leopard, CS3 and new MS office, where does that leave current powerbook and iBook users?