Evidence points to new MacBook Pros on horizon

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 134
    I agree that Arrandale in January is the most likely processor for Macbooks. I just don't think it's impossible that Apple will use the mobile quad-core i7s, at least as an option.
  • Reply 82 of 134
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 114member
    As much as I'd love a 1680x1050 display in a 15.4" MBP, I can't help but think that Apple will go 16:9 instead. So what will likely happen is instead a 15.4" model, there will be a 16.4" model with a 1600x900 display. It's slightly higher PPI than now and that display would be almost the same height as the current ones- just wider.







    What this does is (as with the iMac) allow for a wider case, and better cooling by spreading the CPU/GPU apart a little bit more. I think this better cooling will allow for Apple to get away with a mobile Core i5 (I think it's called Arrandale) and a Radeon 4670 (if they choose to use it over an equivalent Nvidia GPU)
  • Reply 83 of 134
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. K View Post


    As much as I'd love a 1680x1050 display in a 15.4" MBP, I can't help but think that Apple will go 16:9 instead. So what will likely happen is instead a 15.4" model, there will be a 16.4" model with a 1600x900 display. It's slightly higher PPI than now and that display would be almost the same height as the current ones- just wider.



    image: http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t...7at21110PM.png



    What this does is (as with the iMac) allow for a wider case, and better cooling by spreading the CPU/GPU apart a little bit more. I think this better cooling will allow for Apple to get away with a mobile Core i5 (I think it's called Arrandale) and a Radeon 4670 (if they choose to use it over an equivalent Nvidia GPU)



    I could deal with that slight drop in case size. This new ratio looks to have helped the iMacs cooling abilities (compare new 21.5? to old 24?), however there are some caveats for a notebook. Tthe easier and better cooling of this ratio display will also increase the base footprint. This adds area, which translates to a larger volume device, which also means it could weight more.



    I have to wonder if going to 16:9 (hoping they never no) can?t really happen until several years into the future. When optical drives and HDDs with their 9.5mm minimum thickness are thrown out, and 7mm SSDs are the only option for internal storage.



    I think Arandale may be the only option which may mean we have to wait until year. \
  • Reply 84 of 134
    mr. kmr. k Posts: 114member
    Assuming they use the opportunity to make the bezel around the screen smaller- say, the same width as the bezel on the current 17" model- the footprint of the machine wouldn't actually be that much larger. it would be shorter and wider than now, but not a lot bigger.
  • Reply 85 of 134
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    9to5mac is saying that new Mac part numbers are showing up at Best Buy, FWIW.
  • Reply 86 of 134
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    I just saw that. It would be interesting to know what the part numbers are.



    FYI; the current MacBook Pros are:



    13" 2.26 MB990LL/A

    13" 2.53 MB991LL/A



    15" 2.53 MC118LL/A

    15" 2.66 MB985LL/A

    15" 2.8 MB986LL/A



    17" 2.8 MC226LL/A
  • Reply 87 of 134
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,612moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DHagan4755 View Post


    I just saw that. It would be interesting to know what the part numbers are.



    FYI; the current MacBook Pros are:



    13" 2.26 MB990LL/A

    13" 2.53 MB991LL/A



    15" 2.53 MC118LL/A

    15" 2.66 MB985LL/A

    15" 2.8 MB986LL/A



    17" 2.8 MC226LL/A



    I reckon they'll replace the last two models and leave the others the same. So 2.8GHz 15" gets a 1.6GHz quad Core i7-720QM (turbo = 2.8GHz) and the 17" gets the 1.73GHz quad Core i7-820QM (turbo = 3.06GHz). Both 8 thread chips. They could possibly both get the 1.6GHz default with the option to upgrade to the higher up one.
  • Reply 88 of 134
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I reckon they'll replace the last two models and leave the others the same. So 2.8GHz 15" gets a 1.6GHz quad Core i7-720QM (turbo = 2.8GHz) and the 17" gets the 1.73GHz quad Core i7-820QM (turbo = 3.06GHz). Both 8 thread chips. They could possibly both get the 1.6GHz default with the option to upgrade to the higher up one.



    Heh, which would be awesome as I would end up with another MBP 17".
  • Reply 89 of 134
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,152member
    I think you're probably right. They'll probably bring up the specs on the lower-end models to the better Core 2 Duos like they did for the iMacs. Meanwhile the higher-end MacBook Pros will get the new quad core parts.
  • Reply 90 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I reckon they'll replace the last two models and leave the others the same. So 2.8GHz 15" gets a 1.6GHz quad Core i7-720QM (turbo = 2.8GHz) and the 17" gets the 1.73GHz quad Core i7-820QM (turbo = 3.06GHz). Both 8 thread chips. They could possibly both get the 1.6GHz default with the option to upgrade to the higher up one.



    That's my thought as well. The others would get regular 133/267 MHz bumps.
  • Reply 91 of 134
    So, then, for someone who has been saving up to buy a high end 17" and is ready to buy, what do you suggest I do? Buy now or wait?
  • Reply 92 of 134
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,612moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ChrisMc73 View Post


    So, then, for someone who has been saving up to buy a high end 17" and is ready to buy, what do you suggest I do? Buy now or wait?



    Assuming the Best Buy rumors are correct with new product numbers, the update would happen within a matter of days. Apple like to do things on Tuesdays so it could even be later on today. They typically don't introduce changes late in the year so it would be unusual to see an update beyond the end of November. I'd hold off at least until the end of next week. This way, even if they drop in an update later, you will more likely fall inside the return period.
  • Reply 93 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Assuming the Best Buy rumors are correct with new product numbers, the update would happen within a matter of days. Apple like to do things on Tuesdays so it could even be later on today. They typically don't introduce changes late in the year so it would be unusual to see an update beyond the end of November. I'd hold off at least until the end of next week. This way, even if they drop in an update later, you will more likely fall inside the return period.



    In relation to Q4 earnings release, it got out that there would be no more hardware refreshes in 09

    I seriously doubt that we will see new MacBooks Pros before January 2010

    It would be a nice surprise if they did.
  • Reply 94 of 134
    In relation to Q4 earnings release, it got out that there would be no more hardware refreshes in 09

    I seriously doubt that we will see new MacBooks Pros before January 2010

    It would be a nice surprise if they did.
  • Reply 95 of 134
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacApple21 View Post


    In relation to Q4 earnings release, it got out that there would be no more hardware refreshes in 09

    I seriously doubt that we will see new MacBooks Pros before January 2010

    It would be a nice surprise if they did.



    I think the actual phrasing was no new products. That could be interpreted to exclude refreshes, though I agree that it’s likely that nothing else will come out before January. Still, it would likely be best to wait until late November just to be sure, but by then I’d wait until January for an inevitable refresh. \
  • Reply 96 of 134
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I think the actual phrasing was no new products. That could be interpreted to exclude refreshes, though I agree that it?s likely that nothing else will come out before January. Still, it would likely be best to week until late November just to be sure, but by then I?d wait until January for an inevitable refresh. \



    Apple always turns on a dime . MORE than once I have ordered an apple computer and gotten fast chips or more ram or some cool free upgrade. That is why i always order special config from the online store .



    Anyway happy monday morning!!



    peace 9
  • Reply 97 of 134
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Whether it happens in November or January, the next MacBook Pro speedbump really needs to see minimum RAM increased to 4GB. Even the iMac has 4GB minimum RAM now. 2GB is arguably tolerable for the base MacBook and Mac Mini -- but not for much longer.
  • Reply 98 of 134
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    Whether it happens in November or January, the next MacBook Pro speedbump really needs to see minimum RAM increased to 4GB. Even the iMac has 4GB minimum RAM now. 2GB is arguably tolerable for the base MacBook and Mac Mini -- but not for much longer.



    The iMac also went to desktop-class RAM with 4 slots. Aren’t those sticks cheaper since they are less condensed modules?



    I hope they go with 4GB as standard, too, at least for the MBPs with discrete GPUs, though overall I think 2GB is enough for a lot of people. I know other companies pack in more RAM to their systems, but Apple’s OS is more refined and comes with no crapware that can bog down a system.



    This is an interesting review…



    Quote:

    The [MacBook Pro] had a lower memory footprint than its rivals, too. Of the 2GB of RAM installed, only 289MB was used when the machine was idling – around 14% of the total memory installed.

  • Reply 99 of 134
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The iMac also went to desktop-class RAM with 4 slots. Aren?t those sticks cheaper since they are less condensed modules?



    I hope they go with 4GB as standard, too, at least for the MBPs with discrete GPUs, though overall I think 2GB is enough for a lot of people. I know other companies pack in more RAM to their systems, but Apple?s OS is more refined and comes with no crapware that can bog down a system.



    This is an interesting review?



    Not sure what "desktop-class RAM" means but they are still using SO-DIMMs, typically used in laptops and compact desktops. However, SO-DIMMs are just a compact form of memory modules, the chips are the same as the ones used in full sized DIMMs.
  • Reply 100 of 134
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    Not sure what "desktop-class RAM" means but they are still using SO-DIMMs, typically used in laptops and compact desktops. However, SO-DIMMs are just a compact form of memory modules, the chips are the same as the ones used in full sized DIMMs.



    Same as your “typically used in …” comment.



    Then there is no iMac cost saving over RAM for notebooks. I still wouldn’t expect 4GB RAM in some of the MBP offerings come the refresh.
Sign In or Register to comment.