Also, I'm not buying that the new MBP's would only have the Sandy Bridge IGP and no seperate GPU, because that would mean they have weaker graphics than the current MacBook Air. Not going to happen.
Very good point, remember when Apple made the 13" a pro model they touted that the graphics & firewire were a big part of what made it a pro model & separated it from the Air & the white MacBook.
Take a picture of the side of any new MacBook, photoshop out regular icon & add a thunderbolt, add a directional action blur, alter your curves to make it appear a bit more washed out, add camera noise, add slight blur to the noise, save to a lower quality jpg and you have an authentic looking photo.
If the photo were taking with a lot better quality to it I might believe it but the fact that in this day & age the photos are so terrible screams alteration. Bad quality is often used to coverup alteration.
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
SInce it?s using copper, that might be why Apple feels a name change is needed.
Plus, will Intel be using the same Apple designed and VESA standardize mini-DisplayPort port for LightPeak. If not, then that doubly makes a name change important.
Methinks lies, all lies. How incredibly convenient that the leaked photo is completely identical to a current 13" MacBook Pro, but with the Mini DisplayPort icon changed to a thunderbolt. Seems extremely unlikely. That, and Apple putting an i5 in the entry-level MacBook Pro is equally unlikely; we'll be lucky if they finally stop using Core 2 Duos.
Whether this report is true or not, we now have very conflicting rumors; others say an i3 for the 13" along with a 1440x900 display and SSD for booting, while this report has none of those things.
I have always been a fan of windows, but recently I have decided to go to "the other side " and buy a MacBook Pro. However, I will be buying it with all my savings, and as that is a big financial effort, I really want high value-for-money.
I will be buying the 15".
If there isn't a redesign (or at least liquidmetal), if the thunderbolt port isn't compatible with other types of ports (usb 3.0 and its precedents), if the discrete graphics card isn't upgraded, and if there is no OSX-dedicated SSD, I believe that the upgrade isn't worth it.
Really disappointed, hope this is fake and Apple surprises us with real goodies
Otherwise... I will have to remain windows-attached for the next 4/5 years..
I would suggest turning your current PC into a Hackintosh to give it a try before spending the money on a new MBP. If you learn to love OS X, then buy one, if not, then you'll know.
Thunderbolt = 10gb/s using copper. Apple will use Mini-DisplayPort as the interface to differentiate it from...
Lightpeak = 100gb/s (theoretical) using optical. USB-looking interface. Apple will roll this out when it's available and you'll be able to buy adapters for thunderbolt. <-- This is the one port to rule them all; Thunderbolt is still too slow (when combined with power, ethernet, dual monitor, etc) to be a one-port solution.
Whether this report is true or not, we now have very conflicting rumors; others say an i3 for the 13" along with a 1440x900 display and SSD for booting, while this report has none of those things.
That?s because those other reports are not only false, but weak lies that you fell for. i3 does not refer to 13?, i5 to 15? and i7 to 17? notebooks. That is not what defines the Intel chips. There is little chance Apple will use anything lower than Core-i5. Core-i3 doesn?t save on power usage or chip size, and only offers a slightly lower price for chip features that Apple tends to utilize.
So you think by keeping a single, low-end model with the previous dimensions and weight means that the entire line will also keep the previous dimensions and weight despite the longstanding precedence of Apple keeping an older style build with some simple internal and simple external changes?
That's a good point, but it would still surprise me if they re-used every other component except the CPU for the lowest-end model, it would surprise me if the lowest-end model would have an i5 instead of an i3, and it would also surprise me if the lowest-end model would not have a discrete GPU. I think it is very likely the current entry-level 13" will replace the white MacBook, that makes perfect sense. But I would at the very least expect some internal changes to it that would change its size and weight. Even if it only had a smaller, higher-density battery the weight would go down by more than 10 grams. I also can't imagine the resolution for the 13 inchers will stay at 1280x800 when the 13" MBA has a higher resolution. You'd imagine it would be a quick & easy upgrade for Apple to just use the same screens for the 13" MBP's and the 13" MBA's.
That?s because those other reports are not only false, but weak lies that you fell for. i3 does not refer to 13?, i5 to 15? and i7 to 17? notebooks. That is not what defines the Intel chips. There is little chance Apple will use anything lower than Core-i5. Core-i3 doesn?t save on power usage or chip size, and only offers a slightly lower price for chip features that Apple tends to utilize.
You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
That's a good point, but it would still surprise me if they re-used every other component except the CPU for the lowest-end model, it would surprise me if the lowest-end model would have an i5 instead of an i3, and it would also surprise me if the lowest-end model would not have a discrete GPU. I think it is very likely the current entry-level 13" will replace the white MacBook, that makes perfect sense. But I would at the very least expect some internal changes to it that would change its size and weight. Even if it only had a smaller, higher-density battery the weight would go down by more than 10 grams.
But that?s the entry model, just like with the plastic MacBook being the heavier and thicker model even after they made great strides with the MBP. It?s par for the course especially if they drop the optical drive from the 13? MBP, where space is highly constrained and a dGPU and larger battery and thinner casing can only easily happen with the removal of the optical drive.
F*** you Mac division of Apple, your f****ng days are numbered. Intel graphics, if it is true, is absolute bollocks. iPad is the future. And so the decline starts without Steve...
Edit: Yes I'm pissed and irrational. It will take me some time to calm down. If that is true this update is rubbish at least w.r.t. the 13" MBP. Same resolution, worse graphics, sure the port is super duper but it will take time for market adoption, initially it's going to be an overkilled MiniDP Port.
You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
Are you just not using your brain or purposely trolling? Small Form Factor Ultra-Low Voltage CPUs are much more costlier for reasons that you either already know but choosing to ignore for trollish reasons or won’t ever understand at this point if you think that clock speed is the way you measure the price of a CPU.
PS: Which Sandy Bridge Core-i3 will Apple use? Intel lists nothing on their price list and Wikipedia notes only one and that it doesn’t have Turbo. For you to claim that Core-i3 will be a guaranteed for all 13” MBPs you’ll have to make a better argument than that.
NOT in the slightest does this alleviate the complaint regarding the lack of official wireless transfers! Many time I just want to transfer a picture or two, maybe three or four songs I bought on my iPad, or a single app...etc.
I still have to pull out a cable and connect the iPad for something SO trivial! The Zine had this feature years ago and it works perfectly. Is Apple refusing to add it because they are afraid of being seen as copying Apple? This makes no sense at all.
I... wasn't anywhere near talking about wireless transfers in the post you quoted.
At 10Gbps, you'll be fine plugging things in. You can start complaining again when the 802.11ac AirPort Extreme comes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheinside
Are you just being funny? If not, the extra two pins on a Mac are for power supply. They have nothing to do with data rate capabilities. 4-pin FireWire is just as good as 6-pin FireWire in terms of throughput. Nothing really pansy about them.
You made my point for me. POWERED. DRIVES. et. al.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtm135
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
Probably because the cables aren't fiber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
F*** you Mac division of Apple, your f****ng days are numbered. Intel graphics, if it is true, is absolute bollocks. iPad is the future. And so the decline starts without Steve...
Edit: Yes I'm pissed and irrational. It will take me some time to calm down. If that is true this update is rubbish at least w.r.t. the 13" MBP. Same resolution, worse graphics, sure the port is super duper but it will take time for market adoption, initially it's going to be an overkilled MiniDP Port.
Please note that millions of people couldn't care less and will buy it anyway. Apple can't use nVidia chips, but why they didn't go to ATI is beyond me.
You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
The C2D's used in the MBA and the low-end MBP's aren't the same parts as the 2008 ones. I agree that the 13" MBP's have been in pretty desperate need for a CPU upgrade for a long time already, but for the MacBook Air, choosing a C2D + discrete GPU instead of a Core i3 + IGP makes perfect sense, especially since the HD3000 in the Sandy Bridge i3's wasn't available at the time the current MBA was released. An ultraportable like the MBA is usually not used for number crunching anyway, but it _is_ served by longer battery life, and with that in mind a slower C2D with an OpenCL capable GPU makes a lot of sense. I expect OS X 10.7 to make much more use of GPU computing where possible, which is much more power efficient than slapping in a faster GPU, and wil also be faster overall (anything you offload to the GPU frees up the CPU). Last but not least the performance difference between the pre-Sandy Bridge i3 without Turbo boost and the C2D in the MacBook Air is not as big is you might think, especially not in terms of perceived responsiveness, the SSD in the MBA has much, much more impact on that.
I'm guessing these specs are correct. I wanted to see them bring the screen resolutions and instant on capabilities of the MBA to the MBP, and I still think maybe they will for the 15" and 17" models, but I'm not surprised that they haven't for the 13" model. Here's why:
Apple doesn't make their own products obsolete.
Who would buy the 13" MBA for an extra $100 when you could get the instant on capabilities of the MBA with the battery life, hard drive capacity, and superdrive of a MBP and the performance of an i5 over a Core2? The 13" MBA would only appeal to people who were willing to give up a LOT of functionality and performance to shave a third of the weight off of their computer. But these same people would probably get the 11" MBA to shave off even more weight!
These specs allow the 13" MBA to differentiate itself from a 13" MBP with instant on, standby time, and better screen. That's a better balance that gives it a place in the market.
I still think there is a reasonable chance we will get these features in the 15" and 17" MBPs
These features will eventually find their way to ALL macbook pros, but not this soon after the launch of the 13' MBA
I'm upset. Literally. Agreed with jimmy above the 15" better be the bomb or... Ah well, at least I can save up for iPad2 instead. Or doing my Open Water diving course somewhere nice. Looks like mah nice little MacBook Alu 2ghz will have to do for at least another year!
Also agreed with jimmy above I did post a few days ago that the MBP 13" upgrade would clash with the MBA, and noted my confusion.
Are you just not using your brain or purposely trolling? Small Form Factor Ultra-Low Voltage CPUs are much more costlier for reasons that you either already know but choosing to ignore for trollish reasons or won?t ever understand at this point if you think that clock speed is the way you measure the price of a CPU.
My mistake. Allow me to rephrase. You're talking about the company that's using 2.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in four of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
Macrumors has supposedly confirmed these pictures. I am still unsure. It looks like there is a pixel wide seam running through the left USB port. I am also unsure why you need two USB ports AND a FireWire port if you got this super duper new Thunderbolt port? Especially on the entry level which this must be to run only on integrated graphics.
Macrumors has supposedly confirmed these pictures. I am still unsure. It looks like there is a pixel wide seam running through the left USB port. I am also unsure why you need two USB ports AND a FireWire port if you got this super duper new Thunderbolt port? Especially on the entry level which this must be to run only on integrated graphics.
Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.
I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.
Comments
Also, I'm not buying that the new MBP's would only have the Sandy Bridge IGP and no seperate GPU, because that would mean they have weaker graphics than the current MacBook Air. Not going to happen.
Very good point, remember when Apple made the 13" a pro model they touted that the graphics & firewire were a big part of what made it a pro model & separated it from the Air & the white MacBook.
Take a picture of the side of any new MacBook, photoshop out regular icon & add a thunderbolt, add a directional action blur, alter your curves to make it appear a bit more washed out, add camera noise, add slight blur to the noise, save to a lower quality jpg and you have an authentic looking photo.
If the photo were taking with a lot better quality to it I might believe it but the fact that in this day & age the photos are so terrible screams alteration. Bad quality is often used to coverup alteration.
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
SInce it?s using copper, that might be why Apple feels a name change is needed.
Plus, will Intel be using the same Apple designed and VESA standardize mini-DisplayPort port for LightPeak. If not, then that doubly makes a name change important.
Whether this report is true or not, we now have very conflicting rumors; others say an i3 for the 13" along with a 1440x900 display and SSD for booting, while this report has none of those things.
I have always been a fan of windows, but recently I have decided to go to "the other side " and buy a MacBook Pro. However, I will be buying it with all my savings, and as that is a big financial effort, I really want high value-for-money.
I will be buying the 15".
If there isn't a redesign (or at least liquidmetal), if the thunderbolt port isn't compatible with other types of ports (usb 3.0 and its precedents), if the discrete graphics card isn't upgraded, and if there is no OSX-dedicated SSD, I believe that the upgrade isn't worth it.
Really disappointed, hope this is fake and Apple surprises us with real goodies
Otherwise... I will have to remain windows-attached for the next 4/5 years..
I would suggest turning your current PC into a Hackintosh to give it a try before spending the money on a new MBP. If you learn to love OS X, then buy one, if not, then you'll know.
Lightpeak = 100gb/s (theoretical) using optical. USB-looking interface. Apple will roll this out when it's available and you'll be able to buy adapters for thunderbolt. <-- This is the one port to rule them all; Thunderbolt is still too slow (when combined with power, ethernet, dual monitor, etc) to be a one-port solution.
Thunder moves slower than Light[ning].
Whether this report is true or not, we now have very conflicting rumors; others say an i3 for the 13" along with a 1440x900 display and SSD for booting, while this report has none of those things.
That?s because those other reports are not only false, but weak lies that you fell for. i3 does not refer to 13?, i5 to 15? and i7 to 17? notebooks. That is not what defines the Intel chips. There is little chance Apple will use anything lower than Core-i5. Core-i3 doesn?t save on power usage or chip size, and only offers a slightly lower price for chip features that Apple tends to utilize.
Thunderbolt = 10gb/s using copper. Apple will use Mini-DisplayPort as the interface to differentiate it from...
I?m guessing 4 to 5Gbps for Thunderbolt.
So you think by keeping a single, low-end model with the previous dimensions and weight means that the entire line will also keep the previous dimensions and weight despite the longstanding precedence of Apple keeping an older style build with some simple internal and simple external changes?
That's a good point, but it would still surprise me if they re-used every other component except the CPU for the lowest-end model, it would surprise me if the lowest-end model would have an i5 instead of an i3, and it would also surprise me if the lowest-end model would not have a discrete GPU. I think it is very likely the current entry-level 13" will replace the white MacBook, that makes perfect sense. But I would at the very least expect some internal changes to it that would change its size and weight. Even if it only had a smaller, higher-density battery the weight would go down by more than 10 grams. I also can't imagine the resolution for the 13 inchers will stay at 1280x800 when the 13" MBA has a higher resolution. You'd imagine it would be a quick & easy upgrade for Apple to just use the same screens for the 13" MBP's and the 13" MBA's.
That?s because those other reports are not only false, but weak lies that you fell for. i3 does not refer to 13?, i5 to 15? and i7 to 17? notebooks. That is not what defines the Intel chips. There is little chance Apple will use anything lower than Core-i5. Core-i3 doesn?t save on power usage or chip size, and only offers a slightly lower price for chip features that Apple tends to utilize.
You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
That's a good point, but it would still surprise me if they re-used every other component except the CPU for the lowest-end model, it would surprise me if the lowest-end model would have an i5 instead of an i3, and it would also surprise me if the lowest-end model would not have a discrete GPU. I think it is very likely the current entry-level 13" will replace the white MacBook, that makes perfect sense. But I would at the very least expect some internal changes to it that would change its size and weight. Even if it only had a smaller, higher-density battery the weight would go down by more than 10 grams.
But that?s the entry model, just like with the plastic MacBook being the heavier and thicker model even after they made great strides with the MBP. It?s par for the course especially if they drop the optical drive from the 13? MBP, where space is highly constrained and a dGPU and larger battery and thinner casing can only easily happen with the removal of the optical drive.
Edit: Yes I'm pissed and irrational. It will take me some time to calm down. If that is true this update is rubbish at least w.r.t. the 13" MBP. Same resolution, worse graphics, sure the port is super duper but it will take time for market adoption, initially it's going to be an overkilled MiniDP Port.
You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
Are you just not using your brain or purposely trolling? Small Form Factor Ultra-Low Voltage CPUs are much more costlier for reasons that you either already know but choosing to ignore for trollish reasons or won’t ever understand at this point if you think that clock speed is the way you measure the price of a CPU.
Here are some examples:
i7-680UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.46 GHz 32nm) $317
i7-660UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.33 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-640UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.20 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-620UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.06 GHz 32nm) $278
i5-2540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.60 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-2520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.50 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-580M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-560M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.53 GHz 32nm) $257
i5-520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.40 GHz 32nm) $225
Reality quashes your fantasy world once again.
PS: Which Sandy Bridge Core-i3 will Apple use? Intel lists nothing on their price list and Wikipedia notes only one and that it doesn’t have Turbo. For you to claim that Core-i3 will be a guaranteed for all 13” MBPs you’ll have to make a better argument than that.
NOT in the slightest does this alleviate the complaint regarding the lack of official wireless transfers! Many time I just want to transfer a picture or two, maybe three or four songs I bought on my iPad, or a single app...etc.
I still have to pull out a cable and connect the iPad for something SO trivial! The Zine had this feature years ago and it works perfectly. Is Apple refusing to add it because they are afraid of being seen as copying Apple? This makes no sense at all.
I... wasn't anywhere near talking about wireless transfers in the post you quoted.
At 10Gbps, you'll be fine plugging things in. You can start complaining again when the 802.11ac AirPort Extreme comes out.
Are you just being funny? If not, the extra two pins on a Mac are for power supply. They have nothing to do with data rate capabilities. 4-pin FireWire is just as good as 6-pin FireWire in terms of throughput. Nothing really pansy about them.
You made my point for me. POWERED. DRIVES. et. al.
Why not just call it LightPeak? The second makes me think of fiber optics more than the first.
Probably because the cables aren't fiber.
F*** you Mac division of Apple, your f****ng days are numbered. Intel graphics, if it is true, is absolute bollocks. iPad is the future. And so the decline starts without Steve...
Edit: Yes I'm pissed and irrational. It will take me some time to calm down. If that is true this update is rubbish at least w.r.t. the 13" MBP. Same resolution, worse graphics, sure the port is super duper but it will take time for market adoption, initially it's going to be an overkilled MiniDP Port.
Please note that millions of people couldn't care less and will buy it anyway. Apple can't use nVidia chips, but why they didn't go to ATI is beyond me.
You're talking about the company that's using 1.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in six of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
The C2D's used in the MBA and the low-end MBP's aren't the same parts as the 2008 ones. I agree that the 13" MBP's have been in pretty desperate need for a CPU upgrade for a long time already, but for the MacBook Air, choosing a C2D + discrete GPU instead of a Core i3 + IGP makes perfect sense, especially since the HD3000 in the Sandy Bridge i3's wasn't available at the time the current MBA was released. An ultraportable like the MBA is usually not used for number crunching anyway, but it _is_ served by longer battery life, and with that in mind a slower C2D with an OpenCL capable GPU makes a lot of sense. I expect OS X 10.7 to make much more use of GPU computing where possible, which is much more power efficient than slapping in a faster GPU, and wil also be faster overall (anything you offload to the GPU frees up the CPU). Last but not least the performance difference between the pre-Sandy Bridge i3 without Turbo boost and the C2D in the MacBook Air is not as big is you might think, especially not in terms of perceived responsiveness, the SSD in the MBA has much, much more impact on that.
Apple doesn't make their own products obsolete.
Who would buy the 13" MBA for an extra $100 when you could get the instant on capabilities of the MBA with the battery life, hard drive capacity, and superdrive of a MBP and the performance of an i5 over a Core2? The 13" MBA would only appeal to people who were willing to give up a LOT of functionality and performance to shave a third of the weight off of their computer. But these same people would probably get the 11" MBA to shave off even more weight!
These specs allow the 13" MBA to differentiate itself from a 13" MBP with instant on, standby time, and better screen. That's a better balance that gives it a place in the market.
I still think there is a reasonable chance we will get these features in the 15" and 17" MBPs
These features will eventually find their way to ALL macbook pros, but not this soon after the launch of the 13' MBA
Also agreed with jimmy above I did post a few days ago that the MBP 13" upgrade would clash with the MBA, and noted my confusion.
Are you just not using your brain or purposely trolling? Small Form Factor Ultra-Low Voltage CPUs are much more costlier for reasons that you either already know but choosing to ignore for trollish reasons or won?t ever understand at this point if you think that clock speed is the way you measure the price of a CPU.
Here are some examples:
i7-680UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.46 GHz 32nm) $317
i7-660UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.33 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-640UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.20 GHz 32nm) $289
i7-620UM (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.06 GHz 32nm) $278
i5-2540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.60 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-2520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.50 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-580M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $266
i5-560M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 32nm) $225
i5-540M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.53 GHz 32nm) $257
i5-520M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.40 GHz 32nm) $225
Reality quashes your fantasy world once again.
My mistake. Allow me to rephrase. You're talking about the company that's using 2.4 - 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo's circa 2008 in four of it's currently shipping computers. They won't even give you an i5 in an iMac until you spend $2,000.
Macrumors has supposedly confirmed these pictures. I am still unsure. It looks like there is a pixel wide seam running through the left USB port. I am also unsure why you need two USB ports AND a FireWire port if you got this super duper new Thunderbolt port? Especially on the entry level which this must be to run only on integrated graphics.
Honestly it doesn't make sense. Sure you got a fast CPU but the hard disk is slow. And you got a fast I/O but without fast hard drives again. It's disturbing. This is one product announcement I am actually dreading for the first time ever.
I want a faster CPU but I'm going backward on graphics. Then I'd have to put in a 7200rpm HDD or aftermarket SSD anyway. Where's the improvement besides CPU? This update is too pro-Intel and not pro-Apple enough. Not liking it one bit at this stage, and yes, I still haven't calmed down. Winds of change beat furiously overhead as we encircle the dawning of a new IT age post-laptop post-desktop.