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.
Oh my god. You really need to go away, calm down, get a clue and then come back.
The FSB is 800 MHz and the RAM is 667 MHz.
The FSB is not the same as the RAM bus. The FSB connects the processor to the motherboard northbridge and the RAM bus connects RAM to the northbridge.
The RAM in Apple's MacBook Pro is also 667 MHz.
The RAM in all PCs with Santa Rosa/Crestline is 667 MHz max. You know why? The fastest supported RAM by Crestline is 667 MHz.
I believe I stand corrected. My confusion comes from the PowerPC era when the Front Side Bus and RAM shared the same speed. Nowadays, with asynchronus RAM, the FSB and RAM can have different speeds. As usual, Wikipedia sheds light on this subject for the engineering illeterate (i.e. me!!!). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Side_Bus
Quote:
Memory
Setting a FSB speed is related directly to the speed grade of memory that a system must use. The memory bus connects the northbridge and RAM, just as the front side bus connects the CPU and northbridge. Often, these two buses must operate at the same frequency. Increasing the front-side bus to 170 MHz means also running the memory at 170 MHz in most cases.
In newer systems, it is possible to see memory ratios of "4:5" and the like. The memory will run 5/4 times as fast as the FSB in this situation, meaning a 133 MHz bus can run with the memory at 166 MHz. This is often referred to as an 'asynchronous' system. It is important to realize that, due to differences in CPU and system architecture, overall system performance can vary in unexpected ways with different FSB-to-memory ratios.
wondering if this configuration will filter down to the Mini?
Never.
But you might be interested to know that there is a spare SATA port on the mini motherboard that you can use to create your own eSATA port if you are so inclined.
G5s do not have the same FSB and RAM speed and they are PPC.
Indeed. Also, with the G4s, when Apple moved to DDR RAM, the RAM speed was faster than the FSB (rather than the more common situation we have now of FSB is faster than RAM).
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.
It is probably a case of get rid of old inventory to the uninformed. They don't want to reduce the price to get rid of them as they are selling well. Better profits means better bottomline.
Dude, I don't even want Black. In fact, I'd rather have white. I'm just baffled by the situation. I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can"); I don't understand why people would allow Apple to charge them more for for black; and, lastly, I don't understand why people would PAY more for black.
-Clive
I paid more for black (original Core Duo), and for 3 reasons.
1. The hard drive is larger.
2. I like the color more.
3. NO VISIBLE SWEAT STAINS.
That last one alone is worth the 'tax', as you put it.
Q'what? Excuse me?! I have no fashion sense because I fail to see the worth in plopping down an extra $125 for the color black? Because I choose not to pay for a status symbol? It automatically means I don't have fashion sense?
I bought a freaking Cube a couple weeks ago for my media center. I'm arduously rebuilding a Mac Mini inside. Why didn't I just save myself time and money and just use a Mac Mini? Because it's bland. Before you cry "hypocrite," just listen: the Cube is Art. It's not a status symbol (anymore). It's just very nice to look at, has more space inside than a Mini (which I will use for extra storage space and fanless operation), and better fits the aesthetic of my TV unit (IKEA EXPEDIT). Its appearance and form serves a purpose and is worth the few extra dollars and time. Good fashion sense isn't just glitz for glitz's sake. It's where function and form intertwine to create a beautiful object.
Black is a color and alone it does not enhance the beauty of the MacBook. It's premium price point, which implies "glitz for glitz's sake," is not fashion. It's vanity.
Vanity is something that I work hard at to have very little of. That does not exclude me from having fashion sense, thank you.
Black is a color and alone it does not enhance the beauty of the MacBook.
Imagine if, instead of white, the last few years Apple had gone with a standard black theme for all their iMacs, iPods, and MacBooks. And then white was introduced as the new 'high-end' MacBook with a price increase. It'd be the same scenario as today, only in reverse. People would want the white one -- and would be willing to pay a premium for it -- simply because they're tired of the old black-box look and want what's new. It seems 'fresher'.
looks like EVERYONE here happy to pay $200 more for MBB and give all kinda of excuses, but i am seeing the sales LOST due to not having white and black models on $1099, $1299, $1499 price structure with appropriate specs difference between them ...
the white case is not better than black for following reasons
*it gets dirt easily
*sore in the eye
*White is gone from the entire Product line may be except mouse, airport extreme station
*display on the black background standsout from white background
*it is long enough iBook aka MacBook needs go away from white
the entire issues stops if they came out in Grey and Black color like iPod classic then it is upto Apple to differentiate between $1299 and $1499 model assuming $1099 keeps COMBO DRIVE FOREVER!
well, even though i am Apple fanboy i differ in this issue ... i know many of you differ in this issue, this is my humble opinion. it is not about the price not having a choice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I can't find even one thing you said here that makes sense.
I second that, none of that first post makes sense.
I was wondering: can a resident of Canada just have an order shipped to him/her from Apple's US website? Does Apple refuse to do so?...
Nope, Apple refuses to do so... I couldn't even get them to ship one to a US Territory. I had to drag one home with me from Hawaii because they wouldn't ship one to Guam.
Comments
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.
Oh my god. You really need to go away, calm down, get a clue and then come back.
The FSB is 800 MHz and the RAM is 667 MHz.
The FSB is not the same as the RAM bus. The FSB connects the processor to the motherboard northbridge and the RAM bus connects RAM to the northbridge.
The RAM in Apple's MacBook Pro is also 667 MHz.
The RAM in all PCs with Santa Rosa/Crestline is 667 MHz max. You know why? The fastest supported RAM by Crestline is 667 MHz.
I believe I stand corrected. My confusion comes from the PowerPC era when the Front Side Bus and RAM shared the same speed. Nowadays, with asynchronus RAM, the FSB and RAM can have different speeds. As usual, Wikipedia sheds light on this subject for the engineering illeterate (i.e. me!!!). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Side_Bus
Memory
Setting a FSB speed is related directly to the speed grade of memory that a system must use. The memory bus connects the northbridge and RAM, just as the front side bus connects the CPU and northbridge. Often, these two buses must operate at the same frequency. Increasing the front-side bus to 170 MHz means also running the memory at 170 MHz in most cases.
In newer systems, it is possible to see memory ratios of "4:5" and the like. The memory will run 5/4 times as fast as the FSB in this situation, meaning a 133 MHz bus can run with the memory at 166 MHz. This is often referred to as an 'asynchronous' system. It is important to realize that, due to differences in CPU and system architecture, overall system performance can vary in unexpected ways with different FSB-to-memory ratios.
wondering if this configuration will filter down to the Mini?
Looks like no FW800 for the new MB...
wondering if this configuration will filter down to the Mini?
Never.
But you might be interested to know that there is a spare SATA port on the mini motherboard that you can use to create your own eSATA port if you are so inclined.
See here.
My confusion comes from the PowerPC era when the Front Side Bus and RAM shared the same speed.
G5s do not have the same FSB and RAM speed and they are PPC.
G5s do not have the same FSB and RAM speed and they are PPC.
Indeed. Also, with the G4s, when Apple moved to DDR RAM, the RAM speed was faster than the FSB (rather than the more common situation we have now of FSB is faster than RAM).
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.
It is probably a case of get rid of old inventory to the uninformed. They don't want to reduce the price to get rid of them as they are selling well. Better profits means better bottomline.
Dude, I don't even want Black. In fact, I'd rather have white. I'm just baffled by the situation. I don't understand why Apple would want to charge more for a certain color (aside from "because they can"); I don't understand why people would allow Apple to charge them more for for black; and, lastly, I don't understand why people would PAY more for black.
-Clive
I paid more for black (original Core Duo), and for 3 reasons.
1. The hard drive is larger.
2. I like the color more.
3. NO VISIBLE SWEAT STAINS.
That last one alone is worth the 'tax', as you put it.
Then you have no fashion sense whatsoever.
Q'what? Excuse me?! I have no fashion sense because I fail to see the worth in plopping down an extra $125 for the color black? Because I choose not to pay for a status symbol? It automatically means I don't have fashion sense?
I bought a freaking Cube a couple weeks ago for my media center. I'm arduously rebuilding a Mac Mini inside. Why didn't I just save myself time and money and just use a Mac Mini? Because it's bland. Before you cry "hypocrite," just listen: the Cube is Art. It's not a status symbol (anymore). It's just very nice to look at, has more space inside than a Mini (which I will use for extra storage space and fanless operation), and better fits the aesthetic of my TV unit (IKEA EXPEDIT). Its appearance and form serves a purpose and is worth the few extra dollars and time. Good fashion sense isn't just glitz for glitz's sake. It's where function and form intertwine to create a beautiful object.
Black is a color and alone it does not enhance the beauty of the MacBook. It's premium price point, which implies "glitz for glitz's sake," is not fashion. It's vanity.
Vanity is something that I work hard at to have very little of. That does not exclude me from having fashion sense, thank you.
-Clive
Black is a color and alone it does not enhance the beauty of the MacBook.
Imagine if, instead of white, the last few years Apple had gone with a standard black theme for all their iMacs, iPods, and MacBooks. And then white was introduced as the new 'high-end' MacBook with a price increase. It'd be the same scenario as today, only in reverse. People would want the white one -- and would be willing to pay a premium for it -- simply because they're tired of the old black-box look and want what's new. It seems 'fresher'.
I bought a freaking Cube a couple weeks ago for my media center. I'm arduously rebuilding a Mac Mini inside.
Mmm...I hope you purchased just the case or a dead Cube.
What surprised me the most is that it has X3100 graphics on it.
If a $348 dollar laptop has this graphic card, how can an $1,100 dollar laptop call it an upgrade
Mmm...I hope you purchased just the case or a dead Cube.
Nope, I'm selling the innards on eBay and at my current rate, I'll probably turn a profit, actually.
-Clive
Nope, I'm selling the innards on eBay and at my current rate, I'll probably turn a profit, actually.
-Clive
So you turned a functioning "work of art" computer into parts. So glad you're going to turn a profit.
This is going to be one of the times I agree with Mel.
144MB, quite an odd amount...
I'll have to Google this!
128MB + 16MB overhead
Just like the GMA950 MacBooks took 80MB of RAM to provide 64MB of VRAM.
Don't ask me what the overhead is for though...
looks like EVERYONE here happy to pay $200 more for MBB and give all kinda of excuses, but i am seeing the sales LOST due to not having white and black models on $1099, $1299, $1499 price structure with appropriate specs difference between them ...
the white case is not better than black for following reasons
*it gets dirt easily
*sore in the eye
*White is gone from the entire Product line may be except mouse, airport extreme station
*display on the black background standsout from white background
*it is long enough iBook aka MacBook needs go away from white
the entire issues stops if they came out in Grey and Black color like iPod classic then it is upto Apple to differentiate between $1299 and $1499 model assuming $1099 keeps COMBO DRIVE FOREVER!
well, even though i am Apple fanboy i differ in this issue ... i know many of you differ in this issue, this is my humble opinion. it is not about the price not having a choice!
I can't find even one thing you said here that makes sense.
I second that, none of that first post makes sense.
Apple snuck into their stores an aditional new line of Mac machinery that they have not released yet!
Its a TRICK to surprize and AMAZE, YOU! Happenning any time next week.
I was wondering: can a resident of Canada just have an order shipped to him/her from Apple's US website? Does Apple refuse to do so?...
Nope, Apple refuses to do so... I couldn't even get them to ship one to a US Territory. I had to drag one home with me from Hawaii because they wouldn't ship one to Guam.