None of this makes any sense to me, more expensive with lower speed CPU? Is this why I told my neighbour to hold out for 2 months? I'll wait one and a half hours before I believe this but if it's true... It just can't be true this seems like the worst move Apple could make right now...
+++
Looks uncompelling to me at this point but perhaps there are some unreported features to be revealed.
Anybody know of anywhere to get live info during the conference? While all the speculation is fun (well, maybe not), I want to hear from the man himself. I know there won't be an actual live feed of the conference, although that would be cool, is there somewhere to get realtime updates of what is being said?
Looks uncompelling to me at this point but perhaps there are some unreported features to be revealed.
100% with ya on this one. I was really, really, really hoping to replace my 12" PB and was looking in the low 1k range (read 1100-1300) for something with a good processor (I can't understand how the CPU would go down and price go up, that just seems stupid to me). I wonder if Apple would let you downgrade to 1GB of RAM and use that saved money to buy RAM upgrades from Crucial. I'm still holding out hope that changing HDs and RAM will be as easy as it on the current MB.
The CPU pricing business had me scratching my head too until I looked around.
The guy in the article is misleading. The CPU isn't necessarily slower. The old generation of Macbooks has a Front Side Bus speed of 800 MHz, the new ones will be running at 1066, or thereabouts. So even though the new CPU is running .4 GHz slower, it will still be able to communicate with the rest of the computer faster. It's also going to be more power efficient. Hence, not as much of a rip off as you think.
No doubt they'll be amazing machines (they better be at that price) but what Apple needs is an Alu MacBook with simple of the shelf components at $899 or $799. Think the current MacBook but with new case and newer chips. These new machines will make Apple even more niche and exclusive than it already is. No matter how "do-want!" these machines will be, not a lot of people are gonna spend twice as much just to get a Mac.
I'm talking from the point of view of switching people to OSX here, but apparently, that's not a priority for Apple (if the rumours are true)
i hear ya...
glossy screen is fine for checkin' yer myspace, but for processing hundreds of RAW images and editing some HD on Final Cut Pro it's a bit crap...
None of this makes any sense to me, more expensive with lower speed CPU? Is this why I told my neighbour to hold out for 2 months? I'll wait one and a half hours before I believe this but if it's true... It just can't be true this seems like the worst move Apple could make right now...
Yeah, this is a waay crazy move on Apple's part if that's all they got.
Glossy only screens will satisfy most but leave out any professionals that want accurate colour. It seems like a move downward into the heart of the consumer market and away from their traditional Pro/Professional market, but the prices are remaining the same?
There's no way to spin this except as Apple offering less value for the money, which is the opposite of what Apple ususally does each year.
Unless they have some secret "one more thing" to dazzle everyone with and detract attention from the disappointment it doesn't look good.
You guys are too much dollar-centric. There exist other currencies, especially euro and yen. The dollar exchange rate is so low that it is impossible for Apple not to rise theirs prices. Converted into euros, a € 1000 MacBook (that translates to around $1200, since the commercial exchange rate is always at least 10% lower than the actual one) is quite affordable for us over here. Sorry, you're living on the wrong side of the pond (at least these days).
What is much worrisome is this Nvidia stuff. I planned to run a real opensource OS (NetBSD) in parallel with MacOS, but Nvidia has been known to keep secret all the docs related to its hardware, effectively impeding any opensource driver developement, even if the nouveau project is making great effort to reverse-engineer the code. Bummer. I hope it'll work, though.
The CPU pricing business had me scratching my head too until I looked around.
The guy in the article is misleading. The CPU isn't necessarily slower. The old generation of Macbooks has a Front Side Bus speed of 800 MHz, the new ones will be running at 1066, or thereabouts. So even though the new CPU is running .4 GHz slower, it will still be able to communicate with the rest of the computer faster. It's also going to be more power efficient. Hence, not as much of a rip off as you think.
That's fine when you know what you're talking about but if Apple are trying to extend their appeal to the wider market they need to acknowledge that the regular Joe is still going to look at raw processor power...
The CPU pricing business had me scratching my head too until I looked around.
The guy in the article is misleading. The CPU isn't necessarily slower. The old generation of Macbooks has a Front Side Bus speed of 800 MHz, the new ones will be running at 1066, or thereabouts. So even though the new CPU is running .4 GHz slower, it will still be able to communicate with the rest of the computer faster. It's also going to be more power efficient. Hence, not as much of a rip off as you think.
I don't care what the FSB is, that isn't going to compensate for a 400 mhz slower cpu. The 2.0 MB will be much slower, 15-20%, than the 2.4 ghz model.
That's fine when you know what you're talking about but if Apple are trying to extend their appeal to the wider market they need to acknowledge that the regular Joe is still going to look at raw processor power...
I do see where you're coming from, but we got along just fine with the Pentium ordeal... Pentium 4's used to go to 3.6 GHz. Nowadays, high end Core 2 procs hover around 2.8 GHz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
I don't care what the FSB is, that isn't going to compensate for a 400 mhz slower cpu. The 2.0 MB will be much slower, 15-20%, than the 2.4 ghz model.
and 1066 over 800 is a 33% increase. plus, with a stronger integrated graphics chipset, less of the CPU is going to be frittered away on drawing the screen. but hey, if you want to benchmark your old model against what i plan on getting, go right ahead.
You guys are too much dollar-centric. There exist other currencies, especially euro and yen. The dollar exchange rate is so low that it is impossible for Apple not to rise theirs prices. Converted into euros, a € 1000 MacBook (that translates to around $1200, since the commercial exchange rate is always at least 10% lower than the actual one) is quite affordable for us over here. Sorry, you're living on the wrong side of the pond (at least these days).
Not so fast...the dollar has been GAINING VALUE in the past month or two. A few months ago(all approximate)...
GBP=$1.90
EURO=$1.50
AUS=$0.98
CAD=$1.02
Now (10:50am EDT)
GBP=$1.75
EURO=$1.28
AUD=$0.69
CAD=$0.87
The fall in the Euro and Australian dollar is especially remarkable...so in other words, it will be YOU feeling the impact if Apple raises prices! At time same time it means that Asian components should be cheaper, right? Which has me all the more puzzled at poterntial price increases...at least my curiosity will be eased in a couple of hours.
Anybody know the price of that new 2.0 GHz vs the "old" 2.4? If it's a lower mass order pricepoint, I don't care if it's faster in practice or not, it's Apple INCREASING their margins. Those new NVidia chipsets might be more expensive than the Intel ones, but they don't cost Apple $300...
LOL, reduced CPUs. Spotlight on notebooks indeed. This is was a very long walk for a fairly useless and superficial update. If they're going to sit on these specs and/or prices for the better part of yet another year, it's laughable.
Yet again folks need to stop getting themselves worked up before every press conference. But they don't.
Comments
None of this makes any sense to me, more expensive with lower speed CPU? Is this why I told my neighbour to hold out for 2 months? I'll wait one and a half hours before I believe this but if it's true... It just can't be true this seems like the worst move Apple could make right now...
+++
Looks uncompelling to me at this point but perhaps there are some unreported features to be revealed.
Anybody know of anywhere to get live info during the conference? While all the speculation is fun (well, maybe not), I want to hear from the man himself. I know there won't be an actual live feed of the conference, although that would be cool, is there somewhere to get realtime updates of what is being said?
Here are a few...
http://www.macrumorslive.com/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/14/l...tebooks-event/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10064559-1.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/1360...p_1?lsrc=top_1
+++
Looks uncompelling to me at this point but perhaps there are some unreported features to be revealed.
100% with ya on this one. I was really, really, really hoping to replace my 12" PB and was looking in the low 1k range (read 1100-1300) for something with a good processor (I can't understand how the CPU would go down and price go up, that just seems stupid to me). I wonder if Apple would let you downgrade to 1GB of RAM and use that saved money to buy RAM upgrades from Crucial. I'm still holding out hope that changing HDs and RAM will be as easy as it on the current MB.
The guy in the article is misleading. The CPU isn't necessarily slower. The old generation of Macbooks has a Front Side Bus speed of 800 MHz, the new ones will be running at 1066, or thereabouts. So even though the new CPU is running .4 GHz slower, it will still be able to communicate with the rest of the computer faster. It's also going to be more power efficient. Hence, not as much of a rip off as you think.
No doubt they'll be amazing machines (they better be at that price) but what Apple needs is an Alu MacBook with simple of the shelf components at $899 or $799. Think the current MacBook but with new case and newer chips. These new machines will make Apple even more niche and exclusive than it already is. No matter how "do-want!" these machines will be, not a lot of people are gonna spend twice as much just to get a Mac.
I'm talking from the point of view of switching people to OSX here, but apparently, that's not a priority for Apple (if the rumours are true)
i hear ya...
glossy screen is fine for checkin' yer myspace, but for processing hundreds of RAW images and editing some HD on Final Cut Pro it's a bit crap...
what are crAPPLE playin at?
None of this makes any sense to me, more expensive with lower speed CPU? Is this why I told my neighbour to hold out for 2 months? I'll wait one and a half hours before I believe this but if it's true... It just can't be true this seems like the worst move Apple could make right now...
Yeah, this is a waay crazy move on Apple's part if that's all they got.
Glossy only screens will satisfy most but leave out any professionals that want accurate colour. It seems like a move downward into the heart of the consumer market and away from their traditional Pro/Professional market, but the prices are remaining the same?
There's no way to spin this except as Apple offering less value for the money, which is the opposite of what Apple ususally does each year.
Unless they have some secret "one more thing" to dazzle everyone with and detract attention from the disappointment it doesn't look good.
What is much worrisome is this Nvidia stuff. I planned to run a real opensource OS (NetBSD) in parallel with MacOS, but Nvidia has been known to keep secret all the docs related to its hardware, effectively impeding any opensource driver developement, even if the nouveau project is making great effort to reverse-engineer the code. Bummer. I hope it'll work, though.
The CPU pricing business had me scratching my head too until I looked around.
The guy in the article is misleading. The CPU isn't necessarily slower. The old generation of Macbooks has a Front Side Bus speed of 800 MHz, the new ones will be running at 1066, or thereabouts. So even though the new CPU is running .4 GHz slower, it will still be able to communicate with the rest of the computer faster. It's also going to be more power efficient. Hence, not as much of a rip off as you think.
That's fine when you know what you're talking about but if Apple are trying to extend their appeal to the wider market they need to acknowledge that the regular Joe is still going to look at raw processor power...
The CPU pricing business had me scratching my head too until I looked around.
The guy in the article is misleading. The CPU isn't necessarily slower. The old generation of Macbooks has a Front Side Bus speed of 800 MHz, the new ones will be running at 1066, or thereabouts. So even though the new CPU is running .4 GHz slower, it will still be able to communicate with the rest of the computer faster. It's also going to be more power efficient. Hence, not as much of a rip off as you think.
I don't care what the FSB is, that isn't going to compensate for a 400 mhz slower cpu. The 2.0 MB will be much slower, 15-20%, than the 2.4 ghz model.
And they're uglier at that? What have Ives & Co been smoking lately?
That's fine when you know what you're talking about but if Apple are trying to extend their appeal to the wider market they need to acknowledge that the regular Joe is still going to look at raw processor power...
I do see where you're coming from, but we got along just fine with the Pentium ordeal... Pentium 4's used to go to 3.6 GHz. Nowadays, high end Core 2 procs hover around 2.8 GHz.
I don't care what the FSB is, that isn't going to compensate for a 400 mhz slower cpu. The 2.0 MB will be much slower, 15-20%, than the 2.4 ghz model.
and 1066 over 800 is a 33% increase. plus, with a stronger integrated graphics chipset, less of the CPU is going to be frittered away on drawing the screen. but hey, if you want to benchmark your old model against what i plan on getting, go right ahead.
You guys are too much dollar-centric. There exist other currencies, especially euro and yen. The dollar exchange rate is so low that it is impossible for Apple not to rise theirs prices. Converted into euros, a € 1000 MacBook (that translates to around $1200, since the commercial exchange rate is always at least 10% lower than the actual one) is quite affordable for us over here. Sorry, you're living on the wrong side of the pond (at least these days).
Not so fast...the dollar has been GAINING VALUE in the past month or two. A few months ago(all approximate)...
GBP=$1.90
EURO=$1.50
AUS=$0.98
CAD=$1.02
Now (10:50am EDT)
GBP=$1.75
EURO=$1.28
AUD=$0.69
CAD=$0.87
The fall in the Euro and Australian dollar is especially remarkable...so in other words, it will be YOU feeling the impact if Apple raises prices!
Yet again folks need to stop getting themselves worked up before every press conference. But they don't.