I think the real question we should be asking is what this means for the forthcoming Mac Mini revision.
This macbook now as a decent gpu, 2g standard memory, and a 2 Ghz processor at a price of $1000
Compare that with the current Mac mini, which has a similar/same processor, only 1 G, and a much crappier gpu.
Basically, this macbook looks a lot like what the Mac Mini revision will probably be (although let's hope they go for a larger HD and faster memory). However, it only $200 dollars more than the current Mac mini. If I'm not mistaken, the macbook screen costs in the neighborhood of $150-200 to produce, which makes the $800 price point sound about right.
I also have to disagree strongly that "Apple (does) it more than most hardware manufacturers." I've never seen any evidence of that, and have to assume this slight is in your own head, as opposed to anything objectively real.
You've never seen any evidence of that? Maybe you should open your eyes. Apple is completely inflexible on feature sets.
You can't say "I want a MacBook with a 15" display" because they don't make one. If you want a 15" display you're also stuck paying for discrete graphics, FireWire 800, ExpressCard slot, etc.
Over in the PC world you have choices. Want a larger screen without all the other extras? Sure at least 4 manufacturers will sell you exactly what you're willing to pay for. Want the discrete graphics in a machine with only a 13" display? Sure, someone sells that configuration too.
I'm not saying Apple should provide the variety available on the other side of the fence, they're doing very well with their current business model, I'm just showing how they force people to pay for features they may not want.
Now going back to a comment on the first page... one person wondered whether Apple will start following the rest of the industry and quietly updating their products more frequently. That's a double edged sword. More updates = more opportunities for buyers to be upset that their "brand new" machine is suddenly out of date. At the same time it should stop people from holding off purchases in anticipation of big changes.
Now I've seen on some forums the simple advice "if you need a computer now, buy it now", but it's rarely that simple. It's not all that common for a computer to die and need replacement immediately. Most new computers take the place of older ones that still work. In every one of those cases the buyer has the choice of when they buy. Smart buyers either follow Apple release dates or know someone who does. I'd be shocked if more than a handful of desktop Macs have been purchased since August 2008 by people who have any indirect link to an Apple Insider or Mac Rumors regular.
Having said that I know someone who bought an iMac for Christmas. Initially I said "That's crazy, new iMacs will be introduced on January 6". However, this buyer was looking at a older model store demo that had been upgraded and discounted. I looked at the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar. At the time we'd fallen from US$1.10 down to 85 cents and Apple had raised the price of the new notebooks. I concluded that they would be raising the price of new iMacs and thus old models would cost the same amount in January as they did in December.
Personally I'm in the market for a new Mac and the continued tumble of the Canadian dollar has me really scared that I'll be looking at price increases of 25% when the new models come out. Having said that any desktop without an OpenCL compatible GPU and fewer than 4 processor cores is going to be a dinosaur the day Snow Leopard is released. I'll gladly pay an extra 25% to get a machine that'll last me an extra year or more.
I wonder if they underclocked the 9400M in the White MacBook like in the MBA. The MBA underclocks and undervolts to save power and heat, but nVidia would no doubt offer a discount on lower clocked reject 9400M that couldn't make the higher bin of the other models, and it would definitely help Apple's margins at the $999 price point. With the 9400M in the White MacBook being memory starved with DDR2 667 a reduction in clock speed really wouldn't be noticeable anyways.
On the DDR2-667 issue, I can understand Apple not going with DDR3, but no going with DDR2-800 is a strange choice. The price difference is minimal and DDR2-800 is already used in the iMacs so the supply chain is in place. The only other model that still uses DDR2-667 is the Mac Mini, which really points to any upcoming Mac Mini refreshes having similar specs to the White MacBook, namely a 9400M with DDR2-667. At least they were nice enough to include 2GB of RAM, which is pretty much the minimum nowadays.
I noticed the processor was lowered slightly from 2.1 GHz to 2.0 GHz presumably to match up with the lower priced aluminum one. The graphics upgrade more than makes up for that though.
The revised white MacBook also retains its legacy Mini-DVI port rather than jumping up to the company's emerging Mini DisplayPort standard (proposal), meaning its secondary display support remains limited to a full native resolution of up to 1920 by 1200 pixels, or the equivalent of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display.
Yeah I wish the 20" cinema display was 1920x1200 but it's not that's the 24" which is fine for most macbook users.
But wow now I'm torn because I was almost sold on the aluminum macbook but now the old one with the same chipset and graphics + firewire might be a deal breaker for me. I'd be choosing design+weight over firewire+cost, being able to use my firewire drives and offload footage portably again would be awesome.
I'm gonna have to think really hard over the next two weeks.
I the "stupid conclusion" that was meant, was that this configuration was intentionally crippled by Apple.
Why do people always have to immediately assume Apple is "up to no good" when they have never shown any such indications throughout the entire life of the company?
If you care to look, Apple has a list of crimes as long as your arm and has often been found to be 'up to no good'. Crippling low end machines has been one of its specialties. Only now, in the intel mac era have things changed for the better.
I'm not saying that people should automatically assume the worst but Apple has earned its reputation in this area.
i am super pissed i just got a macbook in nov the white one... and now they upgrade it WTF, why does apple do this? i am gonna try to sell mine on craigslist, or something. this pisses me off...
So Apple should just stop all technology advancements just because you just bought a new Mac? What can I say...cry me a river.....
If you care to look, Apple has a list of crimes as long as your arm and has often been found to be 'up to no good'. Crippling low end machines has been one of its specialties. Only now, in the intel mac era have things changed for the better.
I'm not saying that people should automatically assume the worst but Apple has earned its reputation in this area.
Back in the iBook days, for example, Apple didn't allow monitor spanning. You could only mirror the display to a 2nd monitor. It took a hack to get monitor spanning to work.
I can remember back to the first of the "Quicksilver" towers ? the Power Mac G4 ? where the low-end model lacked L3 cache. This made the 733MHz G4 processor run as slow or slower than a 500MHz G4 processor.
Or how about all of those years that Apple gave its diminutive 12-inch PowerBook G4 such a shitty graphics card compared to the larger 15- and 17-inch models?
Or it could be that some of those are just you assume Apple is doing this for that reason. Or, it could be that you have to save money somewhere for a low end device. You can't put $1200 worth of hardware into an $900 computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter
No expansion slots of any kind in anything but "Pro" models, despite every PC maker in the world offering them throughout their ranges.
I really fail to see how that is Apple purposely scaling down low end models. This falls into the area where Apple chooses to compete in certain areas of the market it can be successful in. Cheap/mid-range towers it just doesn't choose to compete in. You can either accept that or go buy what suits your needs. Apple isn't forcing you to stay Mac. If a mid range tower from HP better suits your needs then go buy it.
HALLELUJAH. Here I was cracking my f**ing head figuring out how I could get back playing Steam games and Left 4 Dead. $999 US. Score. Max 6GB RAM on this one, right? 9400M. Enough for Valve: Source and DawnofWar2 on lower settings. Yes yes yes. Time to save save save. Only problem: It's still white.
Or it could be that some of those are just you assume Apple is doing this for that reason. Or, it could be that you have to save money somewhere for a low end device. You can't put $1200 worth of hardware into an $900 computer.
I really fail to see how that is Apple purposely scaling down low end models. This falls into the area where Apple chooses to compete in certain areas of the market it can be successful in. Cheap/mid-range towers it just doesn't choose to compete in. You can either accept that or go buy what suits your needs. Apple isn't forcing you to stay Mac. If a mid range tower from HP better suits your needs then go buy it.
I'm not talking about a tower. I'm talking about no Apple notebooks but the Macbook Pros having an expresscard slot. It's been that way since the iBook came out. Sure, they are rarely used, but I'd like to have the option without having to carry a 15" notebook around.
Could you explain how? Does it have to do with there being 2 RAM modules that can be accessed at the same time?
And yeah my choice of words with deliberately crippling might seem a bit harsh. I totally understand and accept this "product line differenciation" or whatever. If I were Apple, I'd do the same. The list of arguments to go for the bottom line alu MacBook has gotten small enough as is.
It has nothing to do with there being two RAM modules. Memory speed and FSB speed are related, but they cannot be compared the way I think you did. DDR is double-data rate, so DDR2-667 is actually 333MHz, while the FSB is quad-data rate, so the 1066MHz bus is a 266MHz base clock multiplied by four.
This would do a lot to make it more attractive to more people. If you can not afford the 1300-1600 bucks for a MacBook you might have the 925.00 ( discount) for an awesome black one WITH firewire 400!!!
Buy a speck products colored hard plastic cover for your macbook
These covers are great and come in eight colors and a clear one too. They fit like a glove and right now the older model macbooks 13-inch covers cost only $24.95.
These covers are great and come in eight colors and a clear one too. They fit like a glove and right now the older model macbooks 13-inch covers cost only $24.95.
check them out.
Speck cases are not too bad... ...Now how do I change the color on the *inside* of the MacBook? www.colorwarepc.com maybe...?
It has nothing to do with there being two RAM modules. Memory speed and FSB speed are related, but they cannot be compared the way I think you did. DDR is double-data rate, so DDR2-667 is actually 333MHz, while the FSB is quad-data rate, so the 1066MHz bus is a 266MHz base clock multiplied by four.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that. The term "Double Data Rate" has become somewhat of a misnomer as it only logically applies to the first generation. DDR2 is actually effectively quad-pumped so DDR2-667 uses a 166 MHz bus clock, and DDR3 is effectively "octo"-pumped so DDR3-1066 uses a 133 MHz bus clock.
As we know from the PPC "MHz Myth" days, comparing speed is more complex than just looking at the raw MHz numbers. To compare the speed of the FSB and RAM bus, we need to know things like latency and bus width. Whether the RAM is single-, dual- or triple-channel will have a significant effect on the theoretical peak throughput of the RAM.
One thing we can do is compare is the peak bandwidth of the RAM and the FSB. DDR2-667 (aka PC2-5300) has a peak bandwidth of 10.6 GB/s, whilst Intel's 1066 FSB has a peak bandwidth of 8.5 GB/s (see page 39 of this pdf).
Comments
This macbook now as a decent gpu, 2g standard memory, and a 2 Ghz processor at a price of $1000
Compare that with the current Mac mini, which has a similar/same processor, only 1 G, and a much crappier gpu.
Basically, this macbook looks a lot like what the Mac Mini revision will probably be (although let's hope they go for a larger HD and faster memory). However, it only $200 dollars more than the current Mac mini. If I'm not mistaken, the macbook screen costs in the neighborhood of $150-200 to produce, which makes the $800 price point sound about right.
I also have to disagree strongly that "Apple (does) it more than most hardware manufacturers." I've never seen any evidence of that, and have to assume this slight is in your own head, as opposed to anything objectively real.
You've never seen any evidence of that? Maybe you should open your eyes. Apple is completely inflexible on feature sets.
You can't say "I want a MacBook with a 15" display" because they don't make one. If you want a 15" display you're also stuck paying for discrete graphics, FireWire 800, ExpressCard slot, etc.
Over in the PC world you have choices. Want a larger screen without all the other extras? Sure at least 4 manufacturers will sell you exactly what you're willing to pay for. Want the discrete graphics in a machine with only a 13" display? Sure, someone sells that configuration too.
I'm not saying Apple should provide the variety available on the other side of the fence, they're doing very well with their current business model, I'm just showing how they force people to pay for features they may not want.
Now going back to a comment on the first page... one person wondered whether Apple will start following the rest of the industry and quietly updating their products more frequently. That's a double edged sword. More updates = more opportunities for buyers to be upset that their "brand new" machine is suddenly out of date. At the same time it should stop people from holding off purchases in anticipation of big changes.
Now I've seen on some forums the simple advice "if you need a computer now, buy it now", but it's rarely that simple. It's not all that common for a computer to die and need replacement immediately. Most new computers take the place of older ones that still work. In every one of those cases the buyer has the choice of when they buy. Smart buyers either follow Apple release dates or know someone who does. I'd be shocked if more than a handful of desktop Macs have been purchased since August 2008 by people who have any indirect link to an Apple Insider or Mac Rumors regular.
Having said that I know someone who bought an iMac for Christmas. Initially I said "That's crazy, new iMacs will be introduced on January 6". However, this buyer was looking at a older model store demo that had been upgraded and discounted. I looked at the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar. At the time we'd fallen from US$1.10 down to 85 cents and Apple had raised the price of the new notebooks. I concluded that they would be raising the price of new iMacs and thus old models would cost the same amount in January as they did in December.
Personally I'm in the market for a new Mac and the continued tumble of the Canadian dollar has me really scared that I'll be looking at price increases of 25% when the new models come out. Having said that any desktop without an OpenCL compatible GPU and fewer than 4 processor cores is going to be a dinosaur the day Snow Leopard is released. I'll gladly pay an extra 25% to get a machine that'll last me an extra year or more.
On the DDR2-667 issue, I can understand Apple not going with DDR3, but no going with DDR2-800 is a strange choice. The price difference is minimal and DDR2-800 is already used in the iMacs so the supply chain is in place. The only other model that still uses DDR2-667 is the Mac Mini, which really points to any upcoming Mac Mini refreshes having similar specs to the White MacBook, namely a 9400M with DDR2-667. At least they were nice enough to include 2GB of RAM, which is pretty much the minimum nowadays.
The revised white MacBook also retains its legacy Mini-DVI port rather than jumping up to the company's emerging Mini DisplayPort standard (proposal), meaning its secondary display support remains limited to a full native resolution of up to 1920 by 1200 pixels, or the equivalent of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display.
Yeah I wish the 20" cinema display was 1920x1200 but it's not that's the 24" which is fine for most macbook users.
But wow now I'm torn because I was almost sold on the aluminum macbook but now the old one with the same chipset and graphics + firewire might be a deal breaker for me. I'd be choosing design+weight over firewire+cost, being able to use my firewire drives and offload footage portably again would be awesome.
I'm gonna have to think really hard over the next two weeks.
I the "stupid conclusion" that was meant, was that this configuration was intentionally crippled by Apple.
Why do people always have to immediately assume Apple is "up to no good" when they have never shown any such indications throughout the entire life of the company?
If you care to look, Apple has a list of crimes as long as your arm and has often been found to be 'up to no good'. Crippling low end machines has been one of its specialties. Only now, in the intel mac era have things changed for the better.
I'm not saying that people should automatically assume the worst but Apple has earned its reputation in this area.
i am super pissed i just got a macbook in nov the white one... and now they upgrade it WTF, why does apple do this? i am gonna try to sell mine on craigslist, or something. this pisses me off...
So Apple should just stop all technology advancements just because you just bought a new Mac? What can I say...cry me a river.....
If you care to look, Apple has a list of crimes as long as your arm and has often been found to be 'up to no good'. Crippling low end machines has been one of its specialties. Only now, in the intel mac era have things changed for the better.
I'm not saying that people should automatically assume the worst but Apple has earned its reputation in this area.
Care to go into details????
Back in the iBook days, for example, Apple didn't allow monitor spanning. You could only mirror the display to a 2nd monitor. It took a hack to get monitor spanning to work.
I can remember back to the first of the "Quicksilver" towers ? the Power Mac G4 ? where the low-end model lacked L3 cache. This made the 733MHz G4 processor run as slow or slower than a 500MHz G4 processor.
Or how about all of those years that Apple gave its diminutive 12-inch PowerBook G4 such a shitty graphics card compared to the larger 15- and 17-inch models?
Apple refused to update first and second generation iPods with the new features from the third and fourth gen models to force people to upgrade.
No expansion slots of any kind in anything but "Pro" models, despite every PC maker in the world offering them throughout their ranges.
No expansion slots of any kind in anything but "Pro" models, despite every PC maker in the world offering them throughout their ranges.
I really fail to see how that is Apple purposely scaling down low end models. This falls into the area where Apple chooses to compete in certain areas of the market it can be successful in. Cheap/mid-range towers it just doesn't choose to compete in. You can either accept that or go buy what suits your needs. Apple isn't forcing you to stay Mac. If a mid range tower from HP better suits your needs then go buy it.
Or it could be that some of those are just you assume Apple is doing this for that reason. Or, it could be that you have to save money somewhere for a low end device. You can't put $1200 worth of hardware into an $900 computer.
I really fail to see how that is Apple purposely scaling down low end models. This falls into the area where Apple chooses to compete in certain areas of the market it can be successful in. Cheap/mid-range towers it just doesn't choose to compete in. You can either accept that or go buy what suits your needs. Apple isn't forcing you to stay Mac. If a mid range tower from HP better suits your needs then go buy it.
I'm not talking about a tower. I'm talking about no Apple notebooks but the Macbook Pros having an expresscard slot. It's been that way since the iBook came out. Sure, they are rarely used, but I'd like to have the option without having to carry a 15" notebook around.
Could you explain how? Does it have to do with there being 2 RAM modules that can be accessed at the same time?
And yeah my choice of words with deliberately crippling might seem a bit harsh. I totally understand and accept this "product line differenciation" or whatever. If I were Apple, I'd do the same. The list of arguments to go for the bottom line alu MacBook has gotten small enough as is.
It has nothing to do with there being two RAM modules. Memory speed and FSB speed are related, but they cannot be compared the way I think you did. DDR is double-data rate, so DDR2-667 is actually 333MHz, while the FSB is quad-data rate, so the 1066MHz bus is a 266MHz base clock multiplied by four.
This would do a lot to make it more attractive to more people. If you can not afford the 1300-1600 bucks for a MacBook you might have the 925.00 ( discount) for an awesome black one WITH firewire 400!!!
Buy a speck products colored hard plastic cover for your macbook
http://www.speckproducts.com/product...te-or-black/24
and change the color of your macbook.
These covers are great and come in eight colors and a clear one too. They fit like a glove and right now the older model macbooks 13-inch covers cost only $24.95.
check them out.
Buy a speck products colored hard plastic cover for your macbook
http://www.speckproducts.com/product...te-or-black/24
and change the color of your macbook.
These covers are great and come in eight colors and a clear one too. They fit like a glove and right now the older model macbooks 13-inch covers cost only $24.95.
check them out.
Speck cases are not too bad...
It has nothing to do with there being two RAM modules. Memory speed and FSB speed are related, but they cannot be compared the way I think you did. DDR is double-data rate, so DDR2-667 is actually 333MHz, while the FSB is quad-data rate, so the 1066MHz bus is a 266MHz base clock multiplied by four.
Actually, it's even more complicated than that. The term "Double Data Rate" has become somewhat of a misnomer as it only logically applies to the first generation. DDR2 is actually effectively quad-pumped so DDR2-667 uses a 166 MHz bus clock, and DDR3 is effectively "octo"-pumped so DDR3-1066 uses a 133 MHz bus clock.
As we know from the PPC "MHz Myth" days, comparing speed is more complex than just looking at the raw MHz numbers. To compare the speed of the FSB and RAM bus, we need to know things like latency and bus width. Whether the RAM is single-, dual- or triple-channel will have a significant effect on the theoretical peak throughput of the RAM.
One thing we can do is compare is the peak bandwidth of the RAM and the FSB. DDR2-667 (aka PC2-5300) has a peak bandwidth of 10.6 GB/s, whilst Intel's 1066 FSB has a peak bandwidth of 8.5 GB/s (see page 39 of this pdf).