That'll probably be at least another year- at the least. What's wrong with the design? It's the pro that need a redesign. The MacBooks are directly responsible for Apple's increase in computer percentage. That's why they are getting such a speed boost because evryone loves them. Why would they tamper with something that has been so successful at this point?
if you're waiting for a redesign, my question is: What is your problem with the current design?
my macBook pro is almost a perfect design. sure LED backlighting would be nice, sure HDMI would be better than DVI, but the overall design of the macbook pro [and macbook] is a 10 out of 10. no other laptop comes close in industrial design.
And as for screen size: 15" isn't always better than 13". 13" is better for portability, not just for price. It's a size that really makes SENSE, which is why PC makers do in fact use that size too.
Oh c'mon, let's be real and stop being such apologists here.
Similary spec'd and even close in price, does anyone honestly doubt that a 15" notebook will massively outsell a 13" one? Apple obviously is aware of the perceived extra value a larger screen brings, that's why they are so reluctant to give the MB a screen size similar to even the low-end MB Pro.
Sure, there are exceptions to the bigger is better credo, and at a certain point a laptop will get cumbersome, but 15" isn't that point for most ppl. And for those who put a true premium on portability, there are subnotebooks. Well, on the PC side there are, at least.
Quote:
And lastly, as for Apple being able to sell zillions more if they did "X"... that only applies if you're certain that Intel and other suppliers can provide that many more components.
Geez... that would be a nice problem to have, would it not?
Quote:
Apple takes all things into account and winds up with a price that--surprise!--is NOT more expensive than truly COMPARABLE name-brand Windows PCs with similar features and decent software bundles.
Y'know, I used to buy into that propoganda, but I just don't anymore.
Even Jobs himself has said in interviews that Macs are worth charging something like a 10 to 20 percent premium over equivalent PCs (so much for "Macs are actually CHEAPER than PCs"... if even Jobs doesn't believe it, I don't see how anyone else could), and I think that kind of premium is fair, but I'm not sure he's hitting even that goal anymore.
That's why I can wait to upgrade. \
Of course, saying that here is like waving steaks in a lion's den, but there it is.
Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, as I've got lots to do over the next 4 days, and AI is an incredibly effective time-waster.
Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said, but I've heard 'em all and can probably make the pro-Apple case better than 95% of the ppl here. It's not like I didn't already take it into consideration.
Why oh why would you possibly be mad? I have that same comp (although I upgraded to the 160 HD, I agree that is a bit chincy by Apple). You have an outstanding machine. In addition to the extra RAM and much much better graphics card, you're also forgetting about the larger, higher resolution LED screen, firewire 800, express card slot, aluminum enclosure, thinner, extra USB port. The MBP will probably get updated at MWSF and surge ahead again.
This is just the way it goes. The macbook will get pretty close in specs, then the MBP gets updated and pulls away again.
To be mad is pure silliness. How long have you had your MBP? Has the time you've been able to enjoy it now not worth anything or diminished in any way by this update? Of course not.
i've had it for about a month. the only thing out of the list that you said which interests me is the aluminum and the LED screen and graphic card. And those aren't worth the 800 dollars in difference to me. I am very happy with my machine, it performs well and is very nice to the eyes, especially with my newly purchased leopard, but man, 2200 is a lot of money when i can get something that has almost the same specifications of what i need for 800 bucks less.
On another note, my girlfriend was going to get the same computer as mine, but i told her that she should save her parents the money and get the black macbook which she was debating on. She is going to upgrade the ram to 2gb of ram and then she'll have a machine that's as good as my pro machine minus the shell and graphic card and the other stuff which to me is useless.
p.s. I never realized that the macbook was thinner than the macbook pro. i was flabbergasted
p.s.s. get a better server a.i.! i'm always getting, "the server is too busy" messages when i'm trying to view threads or write posts.
In a perfect world, you'd just order the size of Mac notebook you wanted... 13", 15" or 17"... and then you'd choose either the 'MacBook' package or the 'Pro' package to go with it.
You'd get to select the portability vs. screen size trade-off you were most comfortable with, and then whether you really needed a consumer or a pro machine. Want a 17" consumer machine? Fine. Want a 13" Pro machine? No problemo. Don't care to drop $2K on a 15" consumer notebook? Cool.
It'd be awesome, and it'd increase sales even above what they are now... but it'd also reduce margins, so it'll be a chilly day in the seventh circle of Hell before Steve-o ever lets it happen.
Oh c'mon, let's be real and stop being such apologists here.
Similary spec'd and even close in price, does anyone honestly doubt that a 15" notebook will massively outsell a 13" one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said,
I fear you may be letting emotion take over for reason (When trying to be the voice of reason vs. the Apple crazies, less name-calling and more data will improve your credibility. EDIT: I see you've thrown in a "Steve-o"--classic! )
I said nothing about whether 15" for the same price would sell more MacBooks. My point was that 15" isn't "always" (my exact word) better. And I said PC makers sell 13" screens too. Which they do. And I said 13" is more portable, which it is. That doesn't matter to you--but don't confuse your needs with others. 13" is the LARGEST screen I would consider. I have a 15" PowerBook now, and it is too big for me. Size and weight and portability DO matter.
(I like how you say 15" brings "perceived" value )
I've laid out the facts--and given a detailed link--showing why Macs don't cost more than PCs. Throw in reliability and security and productivity, which have a money value too, and Macs are indeed cheaper. Ignoring those factors and looking at specs and software bundles alone, Macs are right in the pack with other name-brand PCs. Apple HAS no bottom-end notebooks, but their mid-range offers similar price vs. specs to PCs. Unless, as you have chosen to do, you ignore certain specs. You can make anything look better or cheaper that way.
Sometimes a Dell is cheaper than an HP. Sometimes an Apple is cheaper than a Dell. Sometimes one brand has a better mix of features for a person's needs than another. A just-released model from one company is often a better package than an older model from another. I can find a Dell that's cheaper than a similar Mac, or HP, or whatever. And as you don't like to admit, I can find an Apple that's cheaper than a Dell too. (You paint things as one-sided and extreme when they are not.) But the point is that Apple's price-vs.-features really IS, on average, right on track with other brands. Take that cheap Dell and add the things its missing, and this is clear. As the link I gave shows--quite reasonably, and without pro-Mac "fanboi" talk at all. It's worth a look, when you're less busy.
Prefacing your misconceptions with saying you like Macs doesn't make them true
And Apple choosing NOT to cut margins to sell more units is perfectly reasonable. Prices are good already, and they seem to be selling quite well and pleasing their customers as is. Including an awful lot of former Windows PC fans. Making Macs a cheap brand might sound like good strategy to you, but I suspect Apple has looked at things in detail and knows otherwise.
In closing, I wholeheartedly support your choice to wait to upgrade until Apple offers something better. I am doing exactly the same. If Apple offered all the features of a MacBook Pro, but with a 13" or smaller screen, they'd have something for me. Right now they don't, but my old Mac is doing just fine for now so I will wait and see.
Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, as I've got lots to do over the next 4 days, and AI is an incredibly effective time-waster.
Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said, but I've heard 'em all and can probably make the pro-Apple case better than 95% of the ppl here. It's not like I didn't already take it into consideration.
Ciao.
.
Dellusions of Grandeur. Let me know when you want to debate some of these topics and we'll see if you truly cut muster or if you're all bluster Count me in as a fan of 13" LCD. I think consumers today are beginning to view laptops from the perspective of features/weight. 15" LCD are popular for the same reason that square tower cases are popular. They are commodity items.
Blah. The question isn't whether Macs are worth more... they are.
The question is, are they being priced within shouting distance of the PC side, even considering the fact that its a Mac? I have my doubts there, which is why I won't be upgrading my Mac notebook 'til I see some better value propositions from Apple. \
Ah well.
.
You Baggins ALWAYS complaining, go back to the Shire!
i've had it for about a month. the only thing out of the list that you said which interests me is the aluminum and the LED screen and graphic card. And those aren't worth the 800 dollars in difference to me. I am very happy with my machine, it performs well and is very nice to the eyes, especially with my newly purchased leopard, but man, 2200 is a lot of money when i can get something that has almost the same specifications of what i need for 800 bucks less.
Then I have to ask, why did you buy the MBP in the first place? It's not like the upgrade that just happened to the macbook was that significant anyways; it was very minor. Seems like the macbook would have been the better value proposition for you in the first place. If it's not worth the price difference now, it shouldn't have been a month ago either.
You shouldn't be mad at apple because of your own buyer's remorse at buying more machine than you needed.
Quote:
p.s. I never realized that the macbook was thinner than the macbook pro. i was flabbergasted
Umm, you've got it backwards. MBP is thinner (although at 1.0 vs. 1.08 it's pretty minor).
...or are they commodity items because they are so popular... hmm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Dellusions of Grandeur. Let me know when you want to debate some of these topics and we'll see if you truly cut muster or if you're all bluster Count me in as a fan of 13" LCD. I think consumers today are beginning to view laptops from the perspective of features/weight. 15" LCD are popular for the same reason that square tower cases are popular. They are commodity items.
I bought my blackbook right after the last refresh, with some fear hanging over my head about the potential for this upgrade somewhere in the (then) near future... but that mostly had to do with the (rampant) rumors at that time of better battery life that could be achieved via Sana Rosa. Doesn't look like that happened at all - the specs page lists the same "up to 6 hours" it did for mine. I suppose it may now actually get 6 hours during somewhat normal use, but seems like they'd milk any battery life gains for all it was worth...
I bought my blackbook right after the last refresh, with some fear hanging over my head about the potential for this upgrade somewhere in the (then) near future... but that mostly had to do with the (rampant) rumors at that time of better battery life that could be achieved via Sana Rosa. Doesn't look like that happened at all - the specs page lists the same "up to 6 hours" it did for mine. I suppose it may now actually get 6 hours during somewhat normal use, but seems like they'd milk any battery life gains for all it was worth...
The gains that we thought we would get just didn't materialize. We thought faster FSB would help, but it did not. There was supposed to be efficiency gains too but they didn't pan out to better battery life.
I think a lot of people were expecting the Slim Aluminum MacBooks but I've always felt these were more likely to be MacBook Pros. Only a couple more months until Macworld when MacBook Pro updates are expected so I don't think we have much longer to wait.
If this is the rumored update why wasn't there a press release for it. During the last update and even the Mini's speed bump we at least had little "faster speed" icons on the Apple Store. The MacBook product page doesn't make a single mention of how it's "now" faster. How come there isn't a single mention of the speed bump at all? What I mean is why isn't Apple obviously pointing it out?
It might not be a significant update which is why there wasn't a press event but to not even mention it at all just seems so un-Apple like. At the end of the day Apple is the kind of company that loves to brag (even if just a little) about everything it does. Just seems strange with all the rumors of an update (including so called analyst predictions) that there'd be no mention of it at all. Just a quiet change on the website with nothing to point it out.
Why wouldn't Apple jump at the opportunity for free advertising of the MacBoook? It couldn't possibly hurt sales could it? Actually wouldn't it encourage sales from the "waiting for the next update" crowd?
Am I alone on this one? Is there something more? Is it possible Apple has something up it's sleeve? Would they bring out a new model so quickly after an update, even a silent one actually especially after a silent one? Could that be why they're being quiet about it?
How hard would it have been for apple to update the chipset? Does it require reworking the motherboard? I don't see how it would. In other words is there any investment required of Apple (R&D, engineering, capital, production equipment, etc.) other than to simply use the new chipset (and maybe test it for stability)?
With the increase in MacBook shipments over the last quarter and the expected growth during the holiday season do you suppose Apple had to update the chipset so they'd have enough chips to keep up with demand while still supplying the Mac Mini? Could Intel have forced the update by giving Apple better pricing on the new chips thereby increasing Apple's profit margin slightly and putting more focus on Intel's current technology? Could Apple just have bought a huge quantity of the new chips to be used in the next revision of the MacBook, guaranteeing better pricing, increasing current margins and building up inventory for the MacBook that hasn't surfaced yet? What if there really is a new case design, but the motherboard, production equipment and testing isn't complete...could that be why this "silent" update happened?
I know, I've asked a lot of questions. Hopefully I got a few brain cells working on this forum. It'd be interesting to discuss it further.
Look nagromme, I'll keep this a one-shot ('cuz I really have to) but... you did not say a single thing that I haven't heard before. Though I will give you bonus points for being pretty comprehensive about it, and some demerits for misrepresenting/misunderstanding my position (I want to "make Macs a cheap brand"? LOL... nope).
Simply put, I used to think exactly like you do, but I don't anymore. Why? Well, its a different era, for starters.
Back in the 'bad old days' of the Nineties, it made sense to back Apple up 'no matter what'. There were waves of PC trolls (and even journalists) trying to FUD Apple out of existence. I defended Apple with ferocity back then (and still do when it's warranted), and was glad I did.
But it's a different world now. Apple's existence is no longer in doubt, only its long-term excellence. And that excellence is best preserved not by being an Apple 'yes man', but by some clear-eyed tough love.
The old adage is true: Failure breeds success, but success also breeds failure. Just saying "Apple knows best" does them no favors, and in fact helps set them up for an eventual fall. Jobs becoming arrogant when things are going well? Nawwww, that could never happen...
Yeah, I know its hard to see what with us being on top of the world n' all right now. But that's probably what Apple though during the Jean-Louis Gasee super-high margin days, and what IBM thought during the peak of its power. Microsoft right now? Probably same.
What's valuable now is constructive criticism. You yourself stated you wanted a 13" MB Pro? So okay, where is it? Would not something like I proposed in post #27 make some sense then? If not, how could it be tweaked so it did? That's the kind of posting I'm looking for, not party-line 'daddy knows best' restatements of what we've heard before. \
And this is why AI has slid so far down the list of sites I visit regularly... not due to the articles, which are GREAT, but due to the community.
It seems like about 5% of the posts are randomness or the occasional troll (par for the internet), 85% are Apple 'booyah' posts or apologista/fanboi dreck, and only maybe 10% are "I like Apple, but I think they would improve if they would..." type posts, i.e. stuff that's actually valuable and what I'm looking for. That ratio just isn't good enough anymore, hence why I come here less than I used to.
You may reject everything I said, or not grok the sprit in which its given, and that's fine, we're all entitled to our views. But hopefully you understand mine a bit better now.
For a guy that keeps protesting he's gotta go and can't discuss a topic you sure do respond a lot. That was a long winded post to insult the opponent rather than discuss the issue.
Buh-bye and good riddance if you actually get gone.
What I really want to know is how the performance of the new graphics chipset stacks up against GMA 950. GMA X3100 uses 144MB of system memory rather than 64MB so something has to be better.
Yes we need 3D benchs too. MacBook are fine, i'm interested in GMAx3100!
Comments
That'll probably be at least another year- at the least. What's wrong with the design? It's the pro that need a redesign. The MacBooks are directly responsible for Apple's increase in computer percentage. That's why they are getting such a speed boost because evryone loves them. Why would they tamper with something that has been so successful at this point?
if you're waiting for a redesign, my question is: What is your problem with the current design?
my macBook pro is almost a perfect design. sure LED backlighting would be nice, sure HDMI would be better than DVI, but the overall design of the macbook pro [and macbook] is a 10 out of 10. no other laptop comes close in industrial design.
How do I know we are purchasing the new processor?
Thanks,
And as for screen size: 15" isn't always better than 13". 13" is better for portability, not just for price. It's a size that really makes SENSE, which is why PC makers do in fact use that size too.
Oh c'mon, let's be real and stop being such apologists here.
Similary spec'd and even close in price, does anyone honestly doubt that a 15" notebook will massively outsell a 13" one? Apple obviously is aware of the perceived extra value a larger screen brings, that's why they are so reluctant to give the MB a screen size similar to even the low-end MB Pro.
Sure, there are exceptions to the bigger is better credo, and at a certain point a laptop will get cumbersome, but 15" isn't that point for most ppl. And for those who put a true premium on portability, there are subnotebooks. Well, on the PC side there are, at least.
And lastly, as for Apple being able to sell zillions more if they did "X"... that only applies if you're certain that Intel and other suppliers can provide that many more components.
Geez... that would be a nice problem to have, would it not?
Apple takes all things into account and winds up with a price that--surprise!--is NOT more expensive than truly COMPARABLE name-brand Windows PCs with similar features and decent software bundles.
Y'know, I used to buy into that propoganda, but I just don't anymore.
Even Jobs himself has said in interviews that Macs are worth charging something like a 10 to 20 percent premium over equivalent PCs (so much for "Macs are actually CHEAPER than PCs"... if even Jobs doesn't believe it, I don't see how anyone else could), and I think that kind of premium is fair, but I'm not sure he's hitting even that goal anymore.
That's why I can wait to upgrade.
Of course, saying that here is like waving steaks in a lion's den, but there it is.
.
Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said, but I've heard 'em all and can probably make the pro-Apple case better than 95% of the ppl here. It's not like I didn't already take it into consideration.
Ciao.
.
Why oh why would you possibly be mad? I have that same comp (although I upgraded to the 160 HD, I agree that is a bit chincy by Apple). You have an outstanding machine. In addition to the extra RAM and much much better graphics card, you're also forgetting about the larger, higher resolution LED screen, firewire 800, express card slot, aluminum enclosure, thinner, extra USB port. The MBP will probably get updated at MWSF and surge ahead again.
This is just the way it goes. The macbook will get pretty close in specs, then the MBP gets updated and pulls away again.
To be mad is pure silliness. How long have you had your MBP? Has the time you've been able to enjoy it now not worth anything or diminished in any way by this update? Of course not.
i've had it for about a month. the only thing out of the list that you said which interests me is the aluminum and the LED screen and graphic card. And those aren't worth the 800 dollars in difference to me. I am very happy with my machine, it performs well and is very nice to the eyes, especially with my newly purchased leopard, but man, 2200 is a lot of money when i can get something that has almost the same specifications of what i need for 800 bucks less.
On another note, my girlfriend was going to get the same computer as mine, but i told her that she should save her parents the money and get the black macbook which she was debating on. She is going to upgrade the ram to 2gb of ram and then she'll have a machine that's as good as my pro machine minus the shell and graphic card and the other stuff which to me is useless.
p.s. I never realized that the macbook was thinner than the macbook pro. i was flabbergasted
p.s.s. get a better server a.i.! i'm always getting, "the server is too busy" messages when i'm trying to view threads or write posts.
In a perfect world, you'd just order the size of Mac notebook you wanted... 13", 15" or 17"... and then you'd choose either the 'MacBook' package or the 'Pro' package to go with it.
You'd get to select the portability vs. screen size trade-off you were most comfortable with, and then whether you really needed a consumer or a pro machine. Want a 17" consumer machine? Fine. Want a 13" Pro machine? No problemo. Don't care to drop $2K on a 15" consumer notebook? Cool.
It'd be awesome, and it'd increase sales even above what they are now... but it'd also reduce margins, so it'll be a chilly day in the seventh circle of Hell before Steve-o ever lets it happen.
Lates.
.
Oh c'mon, let's be real and stop being such apologists here.
Similary spec'd and even close in price, does anyone honestly doubt that a 15" notebook will massively outsell a 13" one?
Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said,
I fear you may be letting emotion take over for reason
I said nothing about whether 15" for the same price would sell more MacBooks. My point was that 15" isn't "always" (my exact word) better. And I said PC makers sell 13" screens too. Which they do. And I said 13" is more portable, which it is. That doesn't matter to you--but don't confuse your needs with others. 13" is the LARGEST screen I would consider. I have a 15" PowerBook now, and it is too big for me. Size and weight and portability DO matter.
(I like how you say 15" brings "perceived" value
I've laid out the facts--and given a detailed link--showing why Macs don't cost more than PCs. Throw in reliability and security and productivity, which have a money value too, and Macs are indeed cheaper. Ignoring those factors and looking at specs and software bundles alone, Macs are right in the pack with other name-brand PCs. Apple HAS no bottom-end notebooks, but their mid-range offers similar price vs. specs to PCs. Unless, as you have chosen to do, you ignore certain specs. You can make anything look better or cheaper that way.
Sometimes a Dell is cheaper than an HP. Sometimes an Apple is cheaper than a Dell. Sometimes one brand has a better mix of features for a person's needs than another. A just-released model from one company is often a better package than an older model from another. I can find a Dell that's cheaper than a similar Mac, or HP, or whatever. And as you don't like to admit, I can find an Apple that's cheaper than a Dell too. (You paint things as one-sided and extreme when they are not.) But the point is that Apple's price-vs.-features really IS, on average, right on track with other brands. Take that cheap Dell and add the things its missing, and this is clear. As the link I gave shows--quite reasonably, and without pro-Mac "fanboi" talk at all. It's worth a look, when you're less busy.
Prefacing your misconceptions with saying you like Macs doesn't make them true
And Apple choosing NOT to cut margins to sell more units is perfectly reasonable. Prices are good already, and they seem to be selling quite well and pleasing their customers as is. Including an awful lot of former Windows PC fans. Making Macs a cheap brand might sound like good strategy to you, but I suspect Apple has looked at things in detail and knows otherwise.
In closing, I wholeheartedly support your choice to wait to upgrade until Apple offers something better. I am doing exactly the same. If Apple offered all the features of a MacBook Pro, but with a 13" or smaller screen, they'd have something for me. Right now they don't, but my old Mac is doing just fine for now so I will wait and see.
Anyhow, I'm out of this thread, as I've got lots to do over the next 4 days, and AI is an incredibly effective time-waster.
Feel free to hurl every fanboi argument there is against what I've said, but I've heard 'em all and can probably make the pro-Apple case better than 95% of the ppl here. It's not like I didn't already take it into consideration.
Ciao.
.
Dellusions of Grandeur. Let me know when you want to debate some of these topics and we'll see if you truly cut muster or if you're all bluster
Blah. The question isn't whether Macs are worth more... they are.
The question is, are they being priced within shouting distance of the PC side, even considering the fact that its a Mac? I have my doubts there, which is why I won't be upgrading my Mac notebook 'til I see some better value propositions from Apple.
Ah well.
.
You Baggins ALWAYS complaining, go back to the Shire!
i've had it for about a month. the only thing out of the list that you said which interests me is the aluminum and the LED screen and graphic card. And those aren't worth the 800 dollars in difference to me. I am very happy with my machine, it performs well and is very nice to the eyes, especially with my newly purchased leopard, but man, 2200 is a lot of money when i can get something that has almost the same specifications of what i need for 800 bucks less.
Then I have to ask, why did you buy the MBP in the first place? It's not like the upgrade that just happened to the macbook was that significant anyways; it was very minor. Seems like the macbook would have been the better value proposition for you in the first place. If it's not worth the price difference now, it shouldn't have been a month ago either.
You shouldn't be mad at apple because of your own buyer's remorse at buying more machine than you needed.
p.s. I never realized that the macbook was thinner than the macbook pro. i was flabbergasted
Umm, you've got it backwards. MBP is thinner (although at 1.0 vs. 1.08 it's pretty minor).
Dellusions of Grandeur. Let me know when you want to debate some of these topics and we'll see if you truly cut muster or if you're all bluster
I bought my blackbook right after the last refresh, with some fear hanging over my head about the potential for this upgrade somewhere in the (then) near future... but that mostly had to do with the (rampant) rumors at that time of better battery life that could be achieved via Sana Rosa. Doesn't look like that happened at all - the specs page lists the same "up to 6 hours" it did for mine. I suppose it may now actually get 6 hours during somewhat normal use, but seems like they'd milk any battery life gains for all it was worth...
The gains that we thought we would get just didn't materialize. We thought faster FSB would help, but it did not. There was supposed to be efficiency gains too but they didn't pan out to better battery life.
It might not be a significant update which is why there wasn't a press event but to not even mention it at all just seems so un-Apple like. At the end of the day Apple is the kind of company that loves to brag (even if just a little) about everything it does. Just seems strange with all the rumors of an update (including so called analyst predictions) that there'd be no mention of it at all. Just a quiet change on the website with nothing to point it out.
Why wouldn't Apple jump at the opportunity for free advertising of the MacBoook? It couldn't possibly hurt sales could it? Actually wouldn't it encourage sales from the "waiting for the next update" crowd?
Am I alone on this one? Is there something more? Is it possible Apple has something up it's sleeve? Would they bring out a new model so quickly after an update, even a silent one actually especially after a silent one? Could that be why they're being quiet about it?
How hard would it have been for apple to update the chipset? Does it require reworking the motherboard? I don't see how it would. In other words is there any investment required of Apple (R&D, engineering, capital, production equipment, etc.) other than to simply use the new chipset (and maybe test it for stability)?
With the increase in MacBook shipments over the last quarter and the expected growth during the holiday season do you suppose Apple had to update the chipset so they'd have enough chips to keep up with demand while still supplying the Mac Mini? Could Intel have forced the update by giving Apple better pricing on the new chips thereby increasing Apple's profit margin slightly and putting more focus on Intel's current technology? Could Apple just have bought a huge quantity of the new chips to be used in the next revision of the MacBook, guaranteeing better pricing, increasing current margins and building up inventory for the MacBook that hasn't surfaced yet? What if there really is a new case design, but the motherboard, production equipment and testing isn't complete...could that be why this "silent" update happened?
I know, I've asked a lot of questions. Hopefully I got a few brain cells working on this forum. It'd be interesting to discuss it further.
The standard fanboi manifesto.
BRAVO! *clap clap clap*
Just kidding.
Look nagromme, I'll keep this a one-shot ('cuz I really have to) but... you did not say a single thing that I haven't heard before. Though I will give you bonus points for being pretty comprehensive about it, and some demerits for misrepresenting/misunderstanding my position (I want to "make Macs a cheap brand"? LOL... nope).
Simply put, I used to think exactly like you do, but I don't anymore. Why? Well, its a different era, for starters.
Back in the 'bad old days' of the Nineties, it made sense to back Apple up 'no matter what'. There were waves of PC trolls (and even journalists) trying to FUD Apple out of existence. I defended Apple with ferocity back then (and still do when it's warranted), and was glad I did.
But it's a different world now. Apple's existence is no longer in doubt, only its long-term excellence. And that excellence is best preserved not by being an Apple 'yes man', but by some clear-eyed tough love.
The old adage is true: Failure breeds success, but success also breeds failure. Just saying "Apple knows best" does them no favors, and in fact helps set them up for an eventual fall. Jobs becoming arrogant when things are going well? Nawwww, that could never happen...
Yeah, I know its hard to see what with us being on top of the world n' all right now. But that's probably what Apple though during the Jean-Louis Gasee super-high margin days, and what IBM thought during the peak of its power. Microsoft right now? Probably same.
What's valuable now is constructive criticism. You yourself stated you wanted a 13" MB Pro? So okay, where is it? Would not something like I proposed in post #27 make some sense then? If not, how could it be tweaked so it did? That's the kind of posting I'm looking for, not party-line 'daddy knows best' restatements of what we've heard before.
And this is why AI has slid so far down the list of sites I visit regularly... not due to the articles, which are GREAT, but due to the community.
It seems like about 5% of the posts are randomness or the occasional troll (par for the internet), 85% are Apple 'booyah' posts or apologista/fanboi dreck, and only maybe 10% are "I like Apple, but I think they would improve if they would..." type posts, i.e. stuff that's actually valuable and what I'm looking for. That ratio just isn't good enough anymore, hence why I come here less than I used to.
You may reject everything I said, or not grok the sprit in which its given, and that's fine, we're all entitled to our views. But hopefully you understand mine a bit better now.
Buh-bye.
.
BRAVO! *clap clap clap*
Just kidding.
.
For a guy that keeps protesting he's gotta go and can't discuss a topic you sure do respond a lot. That was a long winded post to insult the opponent rather than discuss the issue.
Buh-bye and good riddance if you actually get gone.
.
What I really want to know is how the performance of the new graphics chipset stacks up against GMA 950. GMA X3100 uses 144MB of system memory rather than 64MB so something has to be better.
Yes we need 3D benchs too. MacBook are fine, i'm interested in GMAx3100!