In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
ok good point about the cars, but the 'premium' cars you talk about still have very good specs, these macbooks have entry level specs.
The two most immediate competitors to the MacBook I can think of are the Sony VAIO SR and the Dell XPS M1310. When priced to be somewhat similar to the top end MacBook, they were both over $1700 with lesser specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crackbook
sorry dont know what you're talking about with the Viper ACR and the Corvette ZR-1, the rest of the world doesn't import sh*tbox american tractors.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about. Try telling anyone on a car board that and you'll get laughed out of the place. First computers, now cars; your ignorance knows no bounds.
In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about. Try telling anyone on a car board that and you'll get laughed out of the place. First computers, now cars; your ignorance knows no bounds.
He forgot to include the Ford GT in his list of *(&)&*(&* American cars.
Top Gear Aussie tested the new 800(?) horse power Ford GT, which made me drooooooooooooool.
Still, the Stig was able to beat the Nissan GT-R by only a bit over a second, despite the Nissan's being limited in top speed because of the restrictive chip.
This test doesn't say that much about the Ford GT (which is amazing) as it does about the unbelievable Nissan GT-R, which has become my under $250,000 dream car.
In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
While this may be true, people were looking for even lower prices then the $1099 price tag. People (or at least I was) were looking for something around the $799-$999 price tag. Guess I'll look at a Sony or Dell with Ubuntu
Didn't want to do it, but Apple has pushed me away.
someone tell me if the step from 2.0 GHS to 2.4 significant.
does it outweigh the cost???
what improvement will i actually** notice.??
It really depends on what you are doing. Strongly CPU-bound tasks will run slower on the 2.0 GHz model, I highly doubt that the higher FSB will even out the slower CPU as it mostly affects the speed between CPU and memory.
In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
Exactly.
Steve will say they didn't sell well. Everyone wants the Aluminum MB.
Looks like the sub $1000 MB is just around to clear out inventory. I'd be surprised if there is a sub $1000 laptop in the Apple lineup a year from now.
It really depends on what you are doing. Strongly CPU-bound tasks will run slower on the 2.0 GHz model, I highly doubt that the higher FSB will even out the slower CPU as it mostly affects the speed between CPU and memory.
The benefit of a faster FSB is greatly overstated, IMO, based on the experience of previous updates.
I don't see a big difference do you? Maybe this time will be different but Intel's chips with faster FSBs only seem to offer modest gains. Better than nothing mind you but I would go for the faster clock speed not the faster FSB.
It really depends on what you are doing. Strongly CPU-bound tasks will run slower on the 2.0 GHz model, I highly doubt that the higher FSB will even out the slower CPU as it mostly affects the speed between CPU and memory.
so do you think it's worth it for me?
I'm gonna be doing photoshop a lot.
photographer.
i could get the 2.0, upgrade to 4gbs ram, and 250 hd, and it's still cheaper than the 2.4 model.
or, upgrade the 2.4 to 4 gbs later.
what do you think?
i don't mind the glossy display btw. although i preferred matte.
You should be fine with the 2.0 Ghz. I'm running CS3 on a Toshiba laptop with 1.8 GHz Celeron and 512 Mb RAM.
A Macbook with 2.0 Ghz Core2 and 4GB of RAM should run amazingly fast.
I don't mean to slight, but advice like this is meaningless. Unless you have the same requirements as the person posing the question, then your experience means nothing in his context. He wasn't asking people to compare the 2GHz to a Celeron chip; he was asking about the 2.0 and the 2.4.
I don't mean to slight, but advice like this is meaningless. Unless you have the same requirements as the person posing the question, then your experience means nothing in his context. He wasn't asking people to compare the 2GHz to a Celeron chip; he was asking about the 2.0 and the 2.4.
thanks for clarifying.
so what do you think?
given the new ram... etc.
I'm a heavy photoshop user.
very very minimal video editing. but i will use it.
Thanks, TenoBell. It's nice to see some posters who actually are aware of the facts and don't just make them up.
People, stop trying to compare 15-16-17 inch PC notebooks priced at $600 with the 13" MB. There is no comparison. Aside from the LED screen (and its size), the CPUs are not the same, nor are the GPUs, chipsets, features, and most importantly, the OS!
I'm not being an Apple fanboy. These are just the facts. Compare apples to apples (sorry for the pun), not apples to oranges.
I do agree with some of the complaints about Apple's going too far high-end. Apple should have released a "lesser" version of the new MB for $1000-11000.
People always whine after Apple releases a new product these days and pronounce gloom. Glossy iMac, MBA, etc. And yet, Apple market share continued to increase.
The graphic improvements now allows light gaming that was not possible before. Gaming is likely more important to students than FW. The 9400M is likely as fast as my ATI X1600 in my MBP. It's good enough for light gaming.
It can drive a 30" ACD via displayport. A win for folks wanting more real estate without needing a MBP.
The primary problem with lack of FW is for DV camcorders with FW400 ports. That should be solvable with a powered USB/FW 400 hub from somewhere. There IS a healthy Mac aftermarket and a solution should be forthcoming if something isn't already a good fit.
Frankly, when I have my full kit for video stuff I'm carrying the power supply for the camcorder, a scad of extra DV tapes, etc. One more hub is probably not a deal killer.
As I posted in the other thread...the Maxtor FW400/USB2 actually run faster in USB2 in some tests. Seagate claims the reasin is that Apple improved the USB2 drivers in Leopard.
All in all a big improvment. Shame the price isn't lower but oh well. Hopefully the mini gets a rev soon.
The 9400M is likely as fast as my ATI X1600 in my MBP. It's good enough for light gaming.
I'm thinking the same thing. I've grown out of the desire to play games on my computer, so as long as it is fast enough for Aperture and Photoshop CS4, with the occasional flight or racing sim thrown in, I'll be happy.
I think you are all making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I have a firewire hard drive, it has USB2 as well, no biggie.
I live in Australia, the base level MacBook 2Ghz costs 2099 bux inc. gst which works out roughly the same as the American prices including the sales tax.
Now I compare it to a Dell XPS M1330 with a 2.1ghz core 2 duo with an 8400M GS and 2GB DDR-2, its 1800 AUD sure its heaps cheaper, but its not as well made, its heavier and thicker.
Then I look at a Dell Latitude E4300, this thing is closer to the new macbook than the XPS 1330 is, it has a magnesium alloy case, its 1" thick and weights under 2kg, it has same specs as the macbook bar the gfx which are intel, and it costs 2800 AUD. It had no firewire and only 1 USB port.
Thing you all must realise is that this new macbook is an ultraportable, its not going to have all the bells and whistles.
Comments
ok good point about the cars, but the 'premium' cars you talk about still have very good specs, these macbooks have entry level specs.
The two most immediate competitors to the MacBook I can think of are the Sony VAIO SR and the Dell XPS M1310. When priced to be somewhat similar to the top end MacBook, they were both over $1700 with lesser specs.
sorry dont know what you're talking about with the Viper ACR and the Corvette ZR-1, the rest of the world doesn't import sh*tbox american tractors.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about. Try telling anyone on a car board that and you'll get laughed out of the place. First computers, now cars; your ignorance knows no bounds.
In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
I concur with this prediction.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about. Try telling anyone on a car board that and you'll get laughed out of the place. First computers, now cars; your ignorance knows no bounds.
He forgot to include the Ford GT in his list of *(&)&*(&* American cars.
Top Gear Aussie tested the new 800(?) horse power Ford GT, which made me drooooooooooooool.
Still, the Stig was able to beat the Nissan GT-R by only a bit over a second, despite the Nissan's being limited in top speed because of the restrictive chip.
This test doesn't say that much about the Ford GT (which is amazing) as it does about the unbelievable Nissan GT-R, which has become my under $250,000 dream car.
...nothing to do with Macs, just ranting...
PLEASE!!
someone tell me if the step from 2.0 GHS to 2.4 significant.
does it outweigh the cost???
what improvement will i actually** notice.??
About 10% difference. 2.4GHz was about 3 seconds faster in a speedmark test.
In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
While this may be true, people were looking for even lower prices then the $1099 price tag. People (or at least I was) were looking for something around the $799-$999 price tag. Guess I'll look at a Sony or Dell with Ubuntu
Didn't want to do it, but Apple has pushed me away.
PLEASE!!
someone tell me if the step from 2.0 GHS to 2.4 significant.
does it outweigh the cost???
what improvement will i actually** notice.??
It really depends on what you are doing. Strongly CPU-bound tasks will run slower on the 2.0 GHz model, I highly doubt that the higher FSB will even out the slower CPU as it mostly affects the speed between CPU and memory.
In six months (give or take a few), the $999 white Macbook is going to go away, and be replaced with a $1099 aluminum model. After manufacturing costs go down and everyone willing to spend $300 extra for AL has done so.
Exactly.
Steve will say they didn't sell well. Everyone wants the Aluminum MB.
The interesting thing is how prior to the event today analysts were sure Apple was going to get into the sub $1000 market in a meaningful way and how this was going to be a big deal.
Looks like the sub $1000 MB is just around to clear out inventory. I'd be surprised if there is a sub $1000 laptop in the Apple lineup a year from now.
Time will tell.
http://optimitza.cat/news/2008/09/17...0-t8100-p7350/
2 (P7350) - about 1750
2.4 (P8600) - about 2200
The difference is around 25-30% but will depend on the benchmark and actual use.
The older 2.4 (T8300) scores around 2100.
I'd be surprised if there is a sub $1000 laptop in the Apple lineup a year from now.
Time will tell.
Apple will do what the market will bear. If the company is losing money, then it will no longer be able to ignore the $999 and under segment.
It really depends on what you are doing. Strongly CPU-bound tasks will run slower on the 2.0 GHz model, I highly doubt that the higher FSB will even out the slower CPU as it mostly affects the speed between CPU and memory.
The benefit of a faster FSB is greatly overstated, IMO, based on the experience of previous updates.
Compare a Rev B. MBP with a 2.16 ghz C2D and a 667mhz FSB with a Rev C. MBP and a 2.2 ghz C2D and an 800 mhz FSB.
I don't see a big difference do you? Maybe this time will be different but Intel's chips with faster FSBs only seem to offer modest gains. Better than nothing mind you but I would go for the faster clock speed not the faster FSB.
It really depends on what you are doing. Strongly CPU-bound tasks will run slower on the 2.0 GHz model, I highly doubt that the higher FSB will even out the slower CPU as it mostly affects the speed between CPU and memory.
so do you think it's worth it for me?
I'm gonna be doing photoshop a lot.
photographer.
i could get the 2.0, upgrade to 4gbs ram, and 250 hd, and it's still cheaper than the 2.4 model.
or, upgrade the 2.4 to 4 gbs later.
what do you think?
i don't mind the glossy display btw. although i preferred matte.
i could get the 2.0, upgrade to 4gbs ram, and 250 hd, and it's still cheaper than the 2.4 model.
or, upgrade the 2.4 to 4 gbs later.
Do not buy RAM from Apple. You can get it for substantially less elsewhere.
In term of the CPU, the 2GHz should be enough for most users.
A Macbook with 2.0 Ghz Core2 and 4GB of RAM should run amazingly fast.
You should be fine with the 2.0 Ghz. I'm running CS3 on a Toshiba laptop with 1.8 GHz Celeron and 512 Mb RAM.
A Macbook with 2.0 Ghz Core2 and 4GB of RAM should run amazingly fast.
I don't mean to slight, but advice like this is meaningless. Unless you have the same requirements as the person posing the question, then your experience means nothing in his context. He wasn't asking people to compare the 2GHz to a Celeron chip; he was asking about the 2.0 and the 2.4.
You should be fine with the 2.0 Ghz. I'm running CS3 on a Toshiba laptop with 1.8 GHz Celeron and 512 Mb RAM.
A Macbook with 2.0 Ghz Core2 and 4GB of RAM should run amazingly fast.
Im anticipating for the next 3/4 years too...
arent we due for software upgrades sometime within a year?
I don't mean to slight, but advice like this is meaningless. Unless you have the same requirements as the person posing the question, then your experience means nothing in his context. He wasn't asking people to compare the 2GHz to a Celeron chip; he was asking about the 2.0 and the 2.4.
thanks for clarifying.
so what do you think?
given the new ram... etc.
I'm a heavy photoshop user.
very very minimal video editing. but i will use it.
garage band. some.
Thanks, TenoBell. It's nice to see some posters who actually are aware of the facts and don't just make them up.
People, stop trying to compare 15-16-17 inch PC notebooks priced at $600 with the 13" MB. There is no comparison. Aside from the LED screen (and its size), the CPUs are not the same, nor are the GPUs, chipsets, features, and most importantly, the OS!
I'm not being an Apple fanboy. These are just the facts. Compare apples to apples (sorry for the pun), not apples to oranges.
I do agree with some of the complaints about Apple's going too far high-end. Apple should have released a "lesser" version of the new MB for $1000-11000.
People always whine after Apple releases a new product these days and pronounce gloom. Glossy iMac, MBA, etc. And yet, Apple market share continued to increase.
The graphic improvements now allows light gaming that was not possible before. Gaming is likely more important to students than FW. The 9400M is likely as fast as my ATI X1600 in my MBP. It's good enough for light gaming.
It can drive a 30" ACD via displayport. A win for folks wanting more real estate without needing a MBP.
The primary problem with lack of FW is for DV camcorders with FW400 ports. That should be solvable with a powered USB/FW 400 hub from somewhere. There IS a healthy Mac aftermarket and a solution should be forthcoming if something isn't already a good fit.
Frankly, when I have my full kit for video stuff I'm carrying the power supply for the camcorder, a scad of extra DV tapes, etc. One more hub is probably not a deal killer.
As I posted in the other thread...the Maxtor FW400/USB2 actually run faster in USB2 in some tests. Seagate claims the reasin is that Apple improved the USB2 drivers in Leopard.
All in all a big improvment. Shame the price isn't lower but oh well. Hopefully the mini gets a rev soon.
The 9400M is likely as fast as my ATI X1600 in my MBP. It's good enough for light gaming.
I'm thinking the same thing. I've grown out of the desire to play games on my computer, so as long as it is fast enough for Aperture and Photoshop CS4, with the occasional flight or racing sim thrown in, I'll be happy.
I have a firewire hard drive, it has USB2 as well, no biggie.
I live in Australia, the base level MacBook 2Ghz costs 2099 bux inc. gst which works out roughly the same as the American prices including the sales tax.
Now I compare it to a Dell XPS M1330 with a 2.1ghz core 2 duo with an 8400M GS and 2GB DDR-2, its 1800 AUD sure its heaps cheaper, but its not as well made, its heavier and thicker.
Then I look at a Dell Latitude E4300, this thing is closer to the new macbook than the XPS 1330 is, it has a magnesium alloy case, its 1" thick and weights under 2kg, it has same specs as the macbook bar the gfx which are intel, and it costs 2800 AUD. It had no firewire and only 1 USB port.
Thing you all must realise is that this new macbook is an ultraportable, its not going to have all the bells and whistles.