The question really comes down to if they want to wait for LED displays or release a model with the main updates sooner and have an update in the fall with the LED backlit screens. This could be a relatively quiet update with a simple press release and or mention of it at the press event when Leopard is released.
Indeed. That's why I am inclined to believe that if Apple updates the Macbook Pro around WWDC or a little before it would probably be a routine update without LED displays.
I bet Intel will beat this and release early. According to anand the SR chipset will be updated to support mobile Penryn CPUs. As I suspected, anands review of SR showed it to be very modest in it's performance adavntage as compared to current meroms in Napa chipset. All those that waited for this will be disappointed IF Apple choose to update MBPs with this chip and chipset. Robson was even deemed a disappointment as it did not reduce the awakening time from hibernate. Sorry folks this is not what you were waiting for. Link for the article:
Very slight improvements in speed, but it looks like idle power is 8W less. If you don't make the system sweat much, I think you can extend the battery life by as much as a third. You can trade that off by making the system lighter or adding as much as an hour of battery life. That is far more than what you could achieve than with the false promises of flash drive power savings, which might have been a watt at most.
Very slight improvements in speed, but it looks like idle power is 8W less. If you don't make the system sweat much, I think you can extend the battery life by as much as a third. You can trade that off by making the system lighter or adding as much as an hour of battery life. That is far more than what you could achieve than with the false promises of flash drive power savings, which might have been a watt at most.
True. But power draw under load slightly higher but would have to concede that SR will likely result in better battery life for portables. Still the performance benefits are a disappointment as was Robson which seemed to make boot times worse.
I'm gonna have to get whatever they churn out in June cause my TiBook is all but dead (bust hinges, pink screen, frequent total screen cut-outs etc.) but if they're waiting for Leopard to rack out the LED screens that's plain depressing. What happened to the Apple 'wow' factor?
True. But power draw under load slightly higher but would have to concede that SR will likely result in better battery life for portables. Still the performance benefits are a disappointment as was Robson which seemed to make boot times worse.
I don't think very many people max out their notebook for sustained periods of time, I think for most uses, it will result in a cooler, longer running notebook.
I didn't see any boot time comparisons between the SR and previous platform, only against itself with the turbo cache on and off.
Bewebste: I suspect the laptop upgrades will come independent of the LED screens, an added cost option over the LCD, at least initially. Which is not really what I'd like to see as I'm about due for a new laptop and I'd really rather a 17" w/LED over a 17" LCD or worse 15" LED.
I have the 17" and while sometimes its handy to have the screen real-estate it has been annoying to lug about. It simply doesn't FIT places that the 15" laptop does (like hotel safes, normal notebook bags/briefcases, any accessories at Apple stores, etc).
If I had to do over I'd likely get the 15" and live with the smaller screen. At home or at work its plugged into a larger screen anyway.
AnandTech recently did a review of the Santa Rosa platform. There review only showed about a 4% gain in many benchmarking tests.
There was surprisingly no improvement using Santa Rosa's NAND caching for boot-up and application startup times. They mention that Intel agreed with their assessment and that the fault lies with the BIOS software of the machines being tested.
This bodes very well for Apple, IMO. I feel that Macs may benefit more from NAND caching as
? Apple currently has only 3 separate MoBos (MB 13", MBP 15", MBP 17")
? Apple uses Santa Rosa's native EFI
? Has a long illustrious history of superb software/hardware integration
PS: I posted a question at Anandtech regarding the maximum RAM utilized by Intel's 965M "Crestline" chipset. I'll report back here if and when I get an answer.
they are better than a lot of the rumor sites out there.
Which is why AI is the only rumour related site I frequent. Compared to other sites, the articles are by far the most informative, balanced and, surprisingly, the forum posters tend to be much more informed and mature than other sites.
Which is why AI is the only rumour related site I frequent. Compared to other sites, this articles are by far the most informative, balanced and, surprisingly, the forum posters tend to be much more informed and mature than other sites.
This site is certainly more fun than many others.
I used to visit many more sites over the years than I visit regularly these days. Thinksecret became tiring for me because it normaly only has one new article every couple of days.
Others are just rehashes of articles from other sites, so why bother.
Also, Santa Rosa is 64 bits all the way through. Leopard will be able to use that.
With Intel chips, going 64 bits does offer a speed advantage, unlike with the PPC.
Except for some pint-size manufacturer that I may not be aware of, Apple will the first company to offer all it's personal computers as fully 64-bit compliant from the hardware to the OS. That rocks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
True. But power draw under load slightly higher but would have to concede that SR will likely result in better battery life for portables. Still the performance benefits are a disappointment as was Robson which seemed to make boot times worse.
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
Fair enough, it is only one test. However, anand's track record is pretty strong. If they don't see a benefit, the burden of proof then falls on Intel to demonstrate it, IMO.
Fair enough, it is only one test. However, anand's track record is pretty strong. If they don't see a benefit, the burden of proof then falls on Intel to demonstrate it, IMO.
It is strong, that is why Intel should be embarrassed by this first battery of tests. All in all, the tests showed some improvement to performance, with lower energy usage and at a lower cost. I expect Intel has already consulted with the MoBo developer to work out the kinks in the BIOS.
I also expect Apple to have worked very closely with Intel to make sure Robson is a breakaway success for both Apple and Intel. For Apple, this showcases how fine-tuned Macs are. For Intel, this illustrates how good Robson is (helping to get back some AMD marketshare) and helps to point the finger at someone other than Intel when it fails to work properly on other manufacture's boards.
I also expect Apple to have worked very closely with Intel to make sure Robson is a breakaway success for both Apple and Intel. For Apple, this showcases how fine-tuned Macs are. For Intel, this illustrates how good Robson is (helping to get back some AMD marketshare) and helps to point the finger at someone other than Intel when it fails to work properly on other manufacture's boards.
I hope you're right. It certainly would make both Apple and Intel look good and MS and Vista inferior to a certain degree. However Robson could turn out to be something that looks good on paper but never pans out when the rubber meets the road. Time will tell.
I have some doubts regarding the credibility of the ThinkSecret information. It seems to more like a guess based LED delivery schedule than anything else. Moreover, since the LED displays is the next big thing in laptop display technology, I doubt Apple would introduce such a MacBook Pro so close to the iPhone launch.
I don't see why they wouldn't have another release with the iPhone. A majority of its features were already covered at Macworld, so there won't be as much time spent on it as most would think, I believe. Just details like how to get it and service, pricing tables, and minor updates possibly. That would only leave demonstration of a just-feature-complete Leopard demo, which again, wouldn't cover too terribly much time (I expect about 1/2 of the time), they could very well introduce the new MBPs in that gap, to go over their environmental plans and then the improvements the LED screens make, and possibly the SR technology, if they do develop it for such a soon release. That would probably take about 1/5 of the keynote, if that, leaving some time for general state of Apple, Inc. stats and things. I don't find it unrealistic at all for it to happen at WWDC.
Indeed. That's why I am inclined to believe that if Apple updates the Macbook Pro around WWDC or a little before it would probably be a routine update without LED displays.
Why bother waiting for the display change? If they're making an update as it is, and have the displays, why wouldn't they put 'em in?
Except for some pint-size manufacturer that I may not be aware of, Apple will the first company to offer all it's personal computers as fully 64-bit compliant from the hardware to the OS. That rocks!
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
Apparently, the BIOS wasn't ready for it. Once the BIOS is updated those machimes should function better.
Comments
The question really comes down to if they want to wait for LED displays or release a model with the main updates sooner and have an update in the fall with the LED backlit screens. This could be a relatively quiet update with a simple press release and or mention of it at the press event when Leopard is released.
Indeed. That's why I am inclined to believe that if Apple updates the Macbook Pro around WWDC or a little before it would probably be a routine update without LED displays.
I bet Intel will beat this and release early. According to anand the SR chipset will be updated to support mobile Penryn CPUs. As I suspected, anands review of SR showed it to be very modest in it's performance adavntage as compared to current meroms in Napa chipset. All those that waited for this will be disappointed IF Apple choose to update MBPs with this chip and chipset. Robson was even deemed a disappointment as it did not reduce the awakening time from hibernate. Sorry folks this is not what you were waiting for. Link for the article:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2985&p=8
Very slight improvements in speed, but it looks like idle power is 8W less. If you don't make the system sweat much, I think you can extend the battery life by as much as a third. You can trade that off by making the system lighter or adding as much as an hour of battery life. That is far more than what you could achieve than with the false promises of flash drive power savings, which might have been a watt at most.
Very slight improvements in speed, but it looks like idle power is 8W less. If you don't make the system sweat much, I think you can extend the battery life by as much as a third. You can trade that off by making the system lighter or adding as much as an hour of battery life. That is far more than what you could achieve than with the false promises of flash drive power savings, which might have been a watt at most.
True. But power draw under load slightly higher but would have to concede that SR will likely result in better battery life for portables. Still the performance benefits are a disappointment as was Robson which seemed to make boot times worse.
True. But power draw under load slightly higher but would have to concede that SR will likely result in better battery life for portables. Still the performance benefits are a disappointment as was Robson which seemed to make boot times worse.
I don't think very many people max out their notebook for sustained periods of time, I think for most uses, it will result in a cooler, longer running notebook.
I didn't see any boot time comparisons between the SR and previous platform, only against itself with the turbo cache on and off.
I didn't see any boot time comparisons between the SR and previous platform, only against itself with the turbo cache on and off.
Let me clarify. Robson technology doesn't appear to improve boot times in the SR platform.
Bewebste: I suspect the laptop upgrades will come independent of the LED screens, an added cost option over the LCD, at least initially. Which is not really what I'd like to see as I'm about due for a new laptop and I'd really rather a 17" w/LED over a 17" LCD or worse 15" LED.
I have the 17" and while sometimes its handy to have the screen real-estate it has been annoying to lug about. It simply doesn't FIT places that the 15" laptop does (like hotel safes, normal notebook bags/briefcases, any accessories at Apple stores, etc).
If I had to do over I'd likely get the 15" and live with the smaller screen. At home or at work its plugged into a larger screen anyway.
Vinea
Heat be damned, the day will come when we'll see quad-core laptops and beyond.
I think the iMac will get the mobile quad-core before the notebooks since power and heat won't be an issue. The iMac line will become:
24" - quad-core with 4 RAM slots
20" - dual-core or quad-core BTO, both with 2 RAM slots
17" - stays the same with typical bumps (high-end)
17" - GMA X3000 replaces GMA 950 (low-end)
or
24" - quad-core with 4 RAM slots
20" - quad-core with 4 RAM slots
20" - dual-core with 2 RAM slots
17" - uses GMA X3000 and SuperDrive becomes a BTO option
Has ThinkSecret been right about anything in the last two years?
We'll find out next month at WWDC. And hey, they are better than a lot of the rumor sites out there.
.
There was surprisingly no improvement using Santa Rosa's NAND caching for boot-up and application startup times. They mention that Intel agreed with their assessment and that the fault lies with the BIOS software of the machines being tested.
This bodes very well for Apple, IMO. I feel that Macs may benefit more from NAND caching as
? Apple currently has only 3 separate MoBos (MB 13", MBP 15", MBP 17")
? Apple uses Santa Rosa's native EFI
? Has a long illustrious history of superb software/hardware integration
PS: I posted a question at Anandtech regarding the maximum RAM utilized by Intel's 965M "Crestline" chipset. I'll report back here if and when I get an answer.
they are better than a lot of the rumor sites out there.
Which is why AI is the only rumour related site I frequent. Compared to other sites, the articles are by far the most informative, balanced and, surprisingly, the forum posters tend to be much more informed and mature than other sites.
Which is why AI is the only rumour related site I frequent. Compared to other sites, this articles are by far the most informative, balanced and, surprisingly, the forum posters tend to be much more informed and mature than other sites.
This site is certainly more fun than many others.
I used to visit many more sites over the years than I visit regularly these days. Thinksecret became tiring for me because it normaly only has one new article every couple of days.
Others are just rehashes of articles from other sites, so why bother.
Also, Santa Rosa is 64 bits all the way through. Leopard will be able to use that.
With Intel chips, going 64 bits does offer a speed advantage, unlike with the PPC.
Except for some pint-size manufacturer that I may not be aware of, Apple will the first company to offer all it's personal computers as fully 64-bit compliant from the hardware to the OS. That rocks!
True. But power draw under load slightly higher but would have to concede that SR will likely result in better battery life for portables. Still the performance benefits are a disappointment as was Robson which seemed to make boot times worse.
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
Fair enough, it is only one test. However, anand's track record is pretty strong. If they don't see a benefit, the burden of proof then falls on Intel to demonstrate it, IMO.
Fair enough, it is only one test. However, anand's track record is pretty strong. If they don't see a benefit, the burden of proof then falls on Intel to demonstrate it, IMO.
It is strong, that is why Intel should be embarrassed by this first battery of tests. All in all, the tests showed some improvement to performance, with lower energy usage and at a lower cost. I expect Intel has already consulted with the MoBo developer to work out the kinks in the BIOS.
I also expect Apple to have worked very closely with Intel to make sure Robson is a breakaway success for both Apple and Intel. For Apple, this showcases how fine-tuned Macs are. For Intel, this illustrates how good Robson is (helping to get back some AMD marketshare) and helps to point the finger at someone other than Intel when it fails to work properly on other manufacture's boards.
I also expect Apple to have worked very closely with Intel to make sure Robson is a breakaway success for both Apple and Intel. For Apple, this showcases how fine-tuned Macs are. For Intel, this illustrates how good Robson is (helping to get back some AMD marketshare) and helps to point the finger at someone other than Intel when it fails to work properly on other manufacture's boards.
I hope you're right. It certainly would make both Apple and Intel look good and MS and Vista inferior to a certain degree. However Robson could turn out to be something that looks good on paper but never pans out when the rubber meets the road. Time will tell.
I have some doubts regarding the credibility of the ThinkSecret information. It seems to more like a guess based LED delivery schedule than anything else. Moreover, since the LED displays is the next big thing in laptop display technology, I doubt Apple would introduce such a MacBook Pro so close to the iPhone launch.
I don't see why they wouldn't have another release with the iPhone. A majority of its features were already covered at Macworld, so there won't be as much time spent on it as most would think, I believe. Just details like how to get it and service, pricing tables, and minor updates possibly. That would only leave demonstration of a just-feature-complete Leopard demo, which again, wouldn't cover too terribly much time (I expect about 1/2 of the time), they could very well introduce the new MBPs in that gap, to go over their environmental plans and then the improvements the LED screens make, and possibly the SR technology, if they do develop it for such a soon release. That would probably take about 1/5 of the keynote, if that, leaving some time for general state of Apple, Inc. stats and things. I don't find it unrealistic at all for it to happen at WWDC.
Indeed. That's why I am inclined to believe that if Apple updates the Macbook Pro around WWDC or a little before it would probably be a routine update without LED displays.
Why bother waiting for the display change? If they're making an update as it is, and have the displays, why wouldn't they put 'em in?
Except for some pint-size manufacturer that I may not be aware of, Apple will the first company to offer all it's personal computers as fully 64-bit compliant from the hardware to the OS. That rocks!
We can't use Anand's one assessment as a benchmark for Robson. It's obvious that the machines they used were not ready for Robson. I do find it odd that Intel would give these machines to AnandTech for testing without first testing it themselves. I suspect that future benchmarking of Robson's capabilities will yield a real world benefit.
Apparently, the BIOS wasn't ready for it. Once the BIOS is updated those machimes should function better.
Too soon for OLED?
Way, way. (unfortunately.)