If, ADR, you are asking if there will be a 13" or so notebook with the 15" or 17" power, I doubt it. Until, years from now, parts and everything are so miniscule that size really doesn't matter (as far as power goes), 13" will be low end, 17" will be high. Just like 17" is low in the iMac, and 24" is high.
Considering that I used one of the original 3 pound X Series ThinkPad before switching I find it hard to believe that Apple can't do it. It's sort of like a mid-range headless Mac that Apple could easily make, but doesn't.
Considering that I used one of the original 3 pound X Series ThinkPad before switching I find it hard to believe that Apple can't do it. It's sort of like a mid-range headless Mac that Apple could easily make, but doesn't.
With Apple, I don't think it's ever a matter whether they can do it, but whether they choose to do it.
no the macbook family is complete, it even said it on the website when the consumer macbook came out, sorry but this is the current lineup and it will be like this for awhile
no the macbook family is complete, it even said it on the website when the consumer macbook came out, sorry but this is the current lineup and it will be like this for awhile
You must not have been following Apple for very long. You never know when things will change.
If, ADR, you are asking if there will be a 13" or so notebook with the 15" or 17" power, I doubt it. Until, years from now, parts and everything are so miniscule that size really doesn't matter (as far as power goes), 13" will be low end, 17" will be high. Just like 17" is low in the iMac, and 24" is high.
-=|Mgkwho
You seem tobe implying that the technology isn't there for a subnotebook with all of the power of the 15 and 17" MacBook Pros. If you are, you are wrong. If you aren't, my apologies. Sony, IBM, Dell, and others have shown that a sub notebook doesn't have to be underpowered. Most everything (short of graphics cards) in current MBPs can be put into a 4lb subnotebook.
I'm currently in the market for a macbook pro and I was wondering if a 12 or 13" MBP is in the works....
It seems so. Note here that MacScoop is MacOSXRumors (NOT MacOSRumors), that has real sources on OS X developements. On the hardware front it saw the upcoming 24" iMac. It was mistaken somewhat in the size though (prediction was for 23"). I don't remember older records to give a more precise figure. FWIW.
You seem tobe implying that the technology isn't there for a subnotebook with all of the power of the 15 and 17" MacBook Pros. If you are, you are wrong. If you aren't, my apologies. Sony, IBM, Dell, and others have shown that a sub notebook doesn't have to be underpowered. Most everything (short of graphics cards) in current MBPs can be put into a 4lb subnotebook.
Are they using the T series or L series CPUs? IBM, er, Lenovo X60 used a T2400, I think, but that's a good thing, it's a little slower (IIRC, 1.66GHz) but runs twice as long on batteries.
No, I'm not implying that infinitespecter. I'm just proposing what Apple's strategies are.
However, overall with technology, it is true that what's large turns into what's small. Take a hard drive, for instance. A 100GB hard drive in my MBP used to not fit into an iPod. Now it does.
So while I'm not saying that the technology is not there for laptops/apple, there are occassions where it isn't. Arguably, until it was in production, you couldn't fit a large(r) hard drive into an iPod.
You must not have been following Apple for very long. You never know when things will change.
well no i havent been following them for too long, 2 years about as i am fairly young, but if they were going to add an addition so soon they wouldnt have claimed the family as complete, im not ruling it out in the future, but its probably not in the works for sometime as soon as macworld San Francisco
Comments
delete
i figure they've decided that size limits the functionality too much and kept the smaller size for the consumer market
If, ADR, you are asking if there will be a 13" or so notebook with the 15" or 17" power, I doubt it. Until, years from now, parts and everything are so miniscule that size really doesn't matter (as far as power goes), 13" will be low end, 17" will be high. Just like 17" is low in the iMac, and 24" is high.
-=|Mgkwho
Considering that I used one of the original 3 pound X Series ThinkPad before switching I find it hard to believe that Apple can't do it. It's sort of like a mid-range headless Mac that Apple could easily make, but doesn't.
With Apple, I don't think it's ever a matter whether they can do it, but whether they choose to do it.
There is hope after all!
a MacBook nano.
And the price will be as high as I expected.
no the macbook family is complete, it even said it on the website when the consumer macbook came out, sorry but this is the current lineup and it will be like this for awhile
You must not have been following Apple for very long. You never know when things will change.
For now, Apple associates screen size with power.
If, ADR, you are asking if there will be a 13" or so notebook with the 15" or 17" power, I doubt it. Until, years from now, parts and everything are so miniscule that size really doesn't matter (as far as power goes), 13" will be low end, 17" will be high. Just like 17" is low in the iMac, and 24" is high.
-=|Mgkwho
You seem tobe implying that the technology isn't there for a subnotebook with all of the power of the 15 and 17" MacBook Pros. If you are, you are wrong. If you aren't, my apologies. Sony, IBM, Dell, and others have shown that a sub notebook doesn't have to be underpowered. Most everything (short of graphics cards) in current MBPs can be put into a 4lb subnotebook.
I'm currently in the market for a macbook pro and I was wondering if a 12 or 13" MBP is in the works....
It seems so.
You seem tobe implying that the technology isn't there for a subnotebook with all of the power of the 15 and 17" MacBook Pros. If you are, you are wrong. If you aren't, my apologies. Sony, IBM, Dell, and others have shown that a sub notebook doesn't have to be underpowered. Most everything (short of graphics cards) in current MBPs can be put into a 4lb subnotebook.
Are they using the T series or L series CPUs? IBM, er, Lenovo X60 used a T2400, I think, but that's a good thing, it's a little slower (IIRC, 1.66GHz) but runs twice as long on batteries.
However, overall with technology, it is true that what's large turns into what's small. Take a hard drive, for instance. A 100GB hard drive in my MBP used to not fit into an iPod. Now it does.
So while I'm not saying that the technology is not there for laptops/apple, there are occassions where it isn't. Arguably, until it was in production, you couldn't fit a large(r) hard drive into an iPod.
-=|Mgkwho
You must not have been following Apple for very long. You never know when things will change.
well no i havent been following them for too long, 2 years about as i am fairly young, but if they were going to add an addition so soon they wouldnt have claimed the family as complete, im not ruling it out in the future, but its probably not in the works for sometime as soon as macworld San Francisco