Uhh, Apple isn't using the low voltage chip in Intel PowerBooks. They're using the normal "T" variant.
Could you please give us some link explaining this, because I can't find any information about the use of normal or low-voltage variant of CoreDuo in MacBook Pro.
The only low voltage chips are out at 1.66 GHz (or 1.5 GHz), and the faster ones will not be out by February. This basic logic (plus Apple's reps on the floor) says the normal "T" variant is being used.
That being said, I don't see Apple going with intel integrated graphics. Radeon X300 anyone?
Radeon X300 is a pretty old ATI solution. While Apple often integrated uncompetitive ancient graphic cards in their computers (GeForce 5200 for example), now with Intel the times are changing:
- Apple compete directly with the PC world, they cannot put bad cards anymore,
- graphic interface in Mac Intel is PCI-express and not AGP anymore, this implies only modern GPUs.
So it seems Apple finally get modern cards (cf. Radeon X1600 128/256MB in iMac and MacBook Pro).
Considering Intel integraded "Graphics Media Accelerator", it is here in iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro as GMA950, but not used thanks to the ATI X1600.
GMA950 is included in the i945GM chipset, consisting of the 82945GM northbridge and the 82801GBM southbridge more known as the ICH7-M (which has an Infineon Trust Platform Module). Why Apple didn't use the cheaper i945PM chipset (identical but sans GMA950) is beyond me.
GMA950 is DX9 compatible, implying it support Smart Shaders 2.x thus Core Image. But it is not a perfect solution because while pixel shaders 2.0 are supported in hardware, vertex shaders 3.0 code is software emulated.
GMA950 only in MacBook would be IMHO a step backwards compared to the current Radeon 9550 in iBook, fully Core Image compatible.
So I may be wrong but I bet MacBook will have a 945GM express chipset with GMA950, plus an ATI Radeon X1300 128 MB.
Radeon X300 is a pretty old ATI solution. While Apple often integrated uncompetitive ancient graphic cards in their computers (GeForce 5200 for example), now with Intel the times are changing:
- Apple compete directly with the PC world, they cannot put bad cards anymore,
- graphic interface in Mac Intel is PCI-express and not AGP anymore, this implies only modern GPUs.
afaik, the x300 is pci-e native. (and not all that slow.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Considering Intel integraded "Graphics Media Accelerator", it is here in iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro as GMA950, but not used thanks to the ATI X1600.
GMA950 is included in the i945GM chipset, consisting of the 82945GM northbridge and the 82801GBM southbridge more known as the ICH7-M (which has an Infineon Trust Platform Module). Why Apple didn't use the cheaper i945PM chipset (identical but sans GMA950) is beyond me.
tigas: Hey, in the take-apart the japanese guy identified the Intel chipset as a OG809456M - well, that part doesn't exist, but the 80945*G*M does. But that part has integrated graphics, so Apple is playing more for features it's not using?
Fiendish: tigas, the chip is clearly labeled OG829456M. You can even see it in the photo.
Aviva: Tigas, that part # is for the ICH7-M, it is still using 945PM chipset.
afaik, the x300 is pci-e native. (and not all that slow.)
I agree with you. But a X300 would not be very up-to-date with all these Core Solo PC laptops available in March/April of this year. With an Intel chipset, comparison between Mac vs PC is even more direct, while PowerPC motherboards were enough different to maintain too much differences to compare easily. But you could be right: a X300 is cheaper than a X1300.
Quote:
are you really sure?
Well, the site you quoted claims the chipset is OG809456M. One guy thinks the "6" had been badly mystiped instead of a "G" and the real one would be "OG80945GM". In fact this is the case, but they also mistyped "80" instead of "82". The *real* part number in the original picture (see yourself) is exactly "OG82945GM".
So the chipset is "945GM".The "G" in it implies there is indeed a Graphic Media Accelerator present. If there was not any GMA9x0, the chipset would had been "945PM".
And the southbridge is exaclty NH82801GBM aka ICH7-M (see picture), used with 945GM as I stated.
I agree with you. But a X300 would not be very up-to-date with all these Core Solo PC laptops available in March/April of this year. With an Intel chipset, comparison between Mac vs PC is even more direct, while PowerPC motherboards were enough different to maintain too much differences to compare easily. But you could be right: a X300 is cheaper than a X1300.
i hear the x1000-series also has some nice 'media features', like hardware h264 acceleration. things like that could be useful (in some tasks) now that we lose altivec. (RIP)
Quote:
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Well, the site you quoted claims the chipset is OG809456M. One guy thinks the "6" had been badly mystiped instead of a "G" and the real one would be "OG80945GM". In fact this is the case, but they also mistyped "80" instead of "82". The *real* part number in the original picture (see yourself) is exactly "OG82945GM".
So the chipset is "945GM".The "G" in it implies there is indeed a Graphic Media Accelerator present. If there was not any GMA9x0, the chipset would had been "945PM".
honestly, i can hardly make out any of the letters, but after some squinting and googling i must say you are most likely right.
(unless intel made a special '6'-version northbridge only for apple...)
If widescreen, I'd hope for a 1280x800 resolution, the 16:10 aspect ratio favored by most widescreen computer displays. At 13.3", that about 113.5 ppi, about the same pixel density as the current 15" G4 PowerBook -- a bump of from older pixel densities, but still not at the squinty extremes of some laptops.
As for processors, I suspect that all MacBook non-Pro models will be single core, making dual core one of the primary Pro-line distinctions.
I'd guess that, at least at first, built-in iSight will be a Pro-only feature too.
I'm just hoping that I don't get stuck with a choice between small and non-Pro and at-least-15" and Pro. I want a 12-13" Pro model for myself.
I'm in the same boat as you. I love the PowerBook 12 incher. While the screen size is "small", anything bigger than it makes the whole laptop a bit too big. I bought a 14" iBook last March and I wish I woulda gotten the 12" one. I hope they release a 12" or 13" MacBook Pro, or have the MacBook with VERY similar specs (mostly I just want isight built-in as well as front row...and the optical audio....and a high screen res).
but but 12" or 13.3" which is common display size?
Well 13.3" and 14" widescreens are pretty common, and so are smaller 10" and 11" widescreens (Sony, notably).
I'd personally love a subnotebook at 10 or 11" sans optical drive because for me that would be awesome. Do I expect it? Not really. Apple likes to equate screen size up = price up, and subnotebooks are one of the pricier market segments. Give it a decent graphics card and the features of the larger notebooks and make room by tossing the optical drive, maybe using iPod sized HD, and the ULV Intel Core Solo processor. It wouldn't really be a 12" replacement because of the price though, I suspect the new MacBook (iBook) would have to fill that spot.
I will freely admit it would be a niche, but a big one in SE Asia and Japan and among frequent travelers elsewhere.
A line up like so, would be nice.
Listed from cheapest to expensive. All widescreen, natch.
13.3" or 14" MacBook
15.4" PowerBook (Correct me, and die)
PowerBook Nano at 10/11" (might be cheaper, might be more expensive then 15.4")
I'd personally love a subnotebook at 10 or 11" sans optical drive because for me that would be awesome. Do I expect it? Not really.
It seems likely to me that Apple will expand its notebook offerings in the not-too-distant future. And something branded as a "Mini" or "Nano" machine would seem to be the order of the day.
However, I don't see this falling in the "Power" range as you suggested. I think we'll see a MacBook Mini offered as the low-barrier-to-entry equivelant to the Mac Mini on the desktop side. Entry-level specs, low price, but attractively packaged with a small footprint. Meant for those who want to test the waters with Apple, for just a little more than the cost of a high-end iPod. Or a second, portable Mac that is just too inexpensive to resist, for those who already have a solid desktop. Great for email/surfing. Word processing. Or watching movies that you've purchased from the iTunes movies store (because there is no optical drive).
Just ballparks on the prices and features, but in a very general sense, this is how I would see the range of portables shaking out. (Mini on the bottom!)
MacBook Pro
13?, 15?, and 17? wide-screen.
All core duo.
1.67 MHz in the 13?. 1.83 MHz in the 17?. Your choice in the 15?.
Same basic features across the line, including iSight, card slot, and lit keyboard (finally!).
Range in price from $1,499 - $2,799.
MacBook
13? wide-screen (one size only).
Built-in iSight. Remote and Front Row. Superdrive.
No card slot, spanning, or lit keys.
Lesser graphics card than MPB.
Plastic shell available in white or black.
1.67 MHz core solo around $999.
1.67 MHz core duo around $1,299.
MacBook Mini
11? wide-screen.
Remote and Front Row included.
No optical drive. No iSight.
Lamest video card they can get away with.
Ultra-portable.
Core solo or some older/slower/cheaper Intel solution.
Starts at $699. More souped up versions available.
If this is what the line looked like, I'd take 2 core duo 13" black MacBooks...
1.67 MHz in the 13?. 1.83 MHz in the 17?. Your choice in the 15?.
Same basic features across the line, including iSight, card slot, and lit keyboard (finally!).
Range in price from $1,499 - $2,799.
MacBook
13? wide-screen (one size only).
Built-in iSight. Remote and Front Row. Superdrive.
No card slot, spanning, or lit keys.
Lesser graphics card than MPB.
Plastic shell available in white or black.
1.67 MHz core solo around $999.
1.67 MHz core duo around $1,299.
MacBook Mini
11? wide-screen.
Remote and Front Row included.
No optical drive. No iSight.
Lamest video card they can get away with.
Ultra-portable.
Core solo or some older/slower/cheaper Intel solution.
Starts at $699. More souped up versions available.
If this is what the line looked like, I'd take 2 core duo 13" black ibooks...
Paul [/B]
I would think that the MacBook (Ibook) would have a 15" widscreen available for those college students/ others who do not want a macbook pro 15" (1,999) but want a bigger screen. Also I like the idea of the Macbook Mini but no optical drive come on man, thats something so basic it should definetly be included. Also just something to bring to the table, maybe because Ipod Mini was replaced by Nano, that Mac Mini will become Mac Nano. Just saying and no i dont have any inside information.
1.67 MHz in the 13?. 1.83 MHz in the 17?. Your choice in the 15?.
Same basic features across the line, including iSight, card slot, and lit keyboard (finally!).
Range in price from $1,499 - $2,799.
MacBook
13? wide-screen (one size only).
Built-in iSight. Remote and Front Row. Superdrive.
No card slot, spanning, or lit keys.
Lesser graphics card than MPB.
Plastic shell available in white or black.
1.67 MHz core solo around $999.
1.67 MHz core duo around $1,299.
MacBook Mini
11? wide-screen.
Remote and Front Row included.
No optical drive. No iSight.
Lamest video card they can get away with.
Ultra-portable.
Core solo or some older/slower/cheaper Intel solution.
Starts at $699. More souped up versions available.
Paulumos, it's the best predictions I've ever read on the subject, congratulations!
I 100% agree with the MacBook Pro line. Really nothing more too say.
For the MacBook line, however, I think that the Core Duo and even the Core Solo is too expensive to be put inside a $999/1299 entry-level notebook Mac. I know that Intel is prepping single core yonah-based Celeron M chips with only 1MB of L2 cache and a 533MHz FSB, those chips are supposed to cost $100-135, half the list price of the Core Solo/Duo chips, with speeds up to 1.73GHz. Apple could use those chips for:
It'll be called "iMacBook" I said this a couple weeks ago and I'm saying it again. There will probably be one size 2 variations, until no macs are power pcs then they'll expand the size line, I think at least.
So I imagine all rev A intels to be like:
imac - 2 sizes, 2 configs
mac mini - 1 size, 2 configs
macbook pro - 1 size, 2 configs
imacbook - 1 size, 2 configs
Mac Pro(powermac) - 1 size, 2 configs(with the quad being god over them)
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE Mac Media Hub - 1 size, 1 config
I see all that happening in 2006. Then in 2007 the lines branch out with more sizes and eventually more configs for some lines looking like this perhaps.
imac - 2 sizes, 2 configs
mac mini - 1 size, 2 configs
macbook pro - 11, 15, 17inch
imacbook - 13, 15inch
Mac Pro(powermac) - 1 size, 3 configs(quad god restored)
Mac Media Hub - 1 size, 2 configs
I think that's a reasonable and reasonably paced roadmap.
When Steve Jobs was presenting the idea of an Apple laptop to its board, back in 1985, he called it a BookMac, according to "Apple Confidential", by O. Linzmayer.
Apple really can't be seen to be selling a computer with just CDRW at that price. Apple hardware needs Superdrive standard - except on the very lowest spec Mac Mini perhaps.
Comments
Originally posted by Electric Monk
Uhh, Apple isn't using the low voltage chip in Intel PowerBooks. They're using the normal "T" variant.
Could you please give us some link explaining this, because I can't find any information about the use of normal or low-voltage variant of CoreDuo in MacBook Pro.
That being said, I don't see Apple going with intel integrated graphics. Radeon X300 anyone?
Core Solo @1.67
512 MB ram
40 MB HD
CD/RW
Radeon X300 32 MB
$999
Core Solo @1.67
512 MB ram
80 MB HD
Superdrive
Radeon X300 64 MB
$1299
any one checked the newer Dell notebooks?
here in singapore they are offering 256 nVidia GeForce GO 7800
Originally posted by hegor
That being said, I don't see Apple going with intel integrated graphics. Radeon X300 anyone?
Radeon X300 is a pretty old ATI solution. While Apple often integrated uncompetitive ancient graphic cards in their computers (GeForce 5200 for example), now with Intel the times are changing:
- Apple compete directly with the PC world, they cannot put bad cards anymore,
- graphic interface in Mac Intel is PCI-express and not AGP anymore, this implies only modern GPUs.
So it seems Apple finally get modern cards (cf. Radeon X1600 128/256MB in iMac and MacBook Pro).
Considering Intel integraded "Graphics Media Accelerator", it is here in iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro as GMA950, but not used thanks to the ATI X1600.
GMA950 is included in the i945GM chipset, consisting of the 82945GM northbridge and the 82801GBM southbridge more known as the ICH7-M (which has an Infineon Trust Platform Module). Why Apple didn't use the cheaper i945PM chipset (identical but sans GMA950) is beyond me.
GMA950 is DX9 compatible, implying it support Smart Shaders 2.x thus Core Image. But it is not a perfect solution because while pixel shaders 2.0 are supported in hardware, vertex shaders 3.0 code is software emulated.
GMA950 only in MacBook would be IMHO a step backwards compared to the current Radeon 9550 in iBook, fully Core Image compatible.
So I may be wrong but I bet MacBook will have a 945GM express chipset with GMA950, plus an ATI Radeon X1300 128 MB.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Radeon X300 is a pretty old ATI solution. While Apple often integrated uncompetitive ancient graphic cards in their computers (GeForce 5200 for example), now with Intel the times are changing:
- Apple compete directly with the PC world, they cannot put bad cards anymore,
- graphic interface in Mac Intel is PCI-express and not AGP anymore, this implies only modern GPUs.
afaik, the x300 is pci-e native. (and not all that slow.)
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Considering Intel integraded "Graphics Media Accelerator", it is here in iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro as GMA950, but not used thanks to the ATI X1600.
GMA950 is included in the i945GM chipset, consisting of the 82945GM northbridge and the 82801GBM southbridge more known as the ICH7-M (which has an Infineon Trust Platform Module). Why Apple didn't use the cheaper i945PM chipset (identical but sans GMA950) is beyond me.
are you really sure?
from here
tigas: Hey, in the take-apart the japanese guy identified the Intel chipset as a OG809456M - well, that part doesn't exist, but the 80945*G*M does. But that part has integrated graphics, so Apple is playing more for features it's not using?
Fiendish: tigas, the chip is clearly labeled OG829456M. You can even see it in the photo.
Aviva: Tigas, that part # is for the ICH7-M, it is still using 945PM chipset.
i dont know what to think of all this...
Originally posted by tubgirl
afaik, the x300 is pci-e native. (and not all that slow.)
I agree with you. But a X300 would not be very up-to-date with all these Core Solo PC laptops available in March/April of this year. With an Intel chipset, comparison between Mac vs PC is even more direct, while PowerPC motherboards were enough different to maintain too much differences to compare easily. But you could be right: a X300 is cheaper than a X1300.
are you really sure?
Well, the site you quoted claims the chipset is OG809456M. One guy thinks the "6" had been badly mystiped instead of a "G" and the real one would be "OG80945GM". In fact this is the case, but they also mistyped "80" instead of "82". The *real* part number in the original picture (see yourself) is exactly "OG82945GM".
So the chipset is "945GM".The "G" in it implies there is indeed a Graphic Media Accelerator present. If there was not any GMA9x0, the chipset would had been "945PM".
And the southbridge is exaclty NH82801GBM aka ICH7-M (see picture), used with 945GM as I stated.
All prictures are from this page.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
I agree with you. But a X300 would not be very up-to-date with all these Core Solo PC laptops available in March/April of this year. With an Intel chipset, comparison between Mac vs PC is even more direct, while PowerPC motherboards were enough different to maintain too much differences to compare easily. But you could be right: a X300 is cheaper than a X1300.
i hear the x1000-series also has some nice 'media features', like hardware h264 acceleration. things like that could be useful (in some tasks) now that we lose altivec. (RIP)
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Well, the site you quoted claims the chipset is OG809456M. One guy thinks the "6" had been badly mystiped instead of a "G" and the real one would be "OG80945GM". In fact this is the case, but they also mistyped "80" instead of "82". The *real* part number in the original picture (see yourself) is exactly "OG82945GM".
So the chipset is "945GM".The "G" in it implies there is indeed a Graphic Media Accelerator present. If there was not any GMA9x0, the chipset would had been "945PM".
honestly, i can hardly make out any of the letters, but after some squinting and googling i must say you are most likely right.
(unless intel made a special '6'-version northbridge only for apple...)
Originally posted by hegor
All the speculation over the Macbook is a good read. Much better than the stuck with the G4 days.
That being said, I don't see Apple going with intel integrated graphics. Radeon X300 anyone?
Core Solo @1.67
512 MB ram
40 MB HD
CD/RW
Radeon X300 32 MB
$999
Core Solo @1.67
512 MB ram
80 MB HD
Superdrive
Radeon X300 64 MB
$1299
probably we will see 128MB VRAM, not the high end cards, but lower end but with 128MB/64 MB...
32 MB probably not a good option, rather use integrated graphics
Originally posted by shetline
If widescreen, I'd hope for a 1280x800 resolution, the 16:10 aspect ratio favored by most widescreen computer displays. At 13.3", that about 113.5 ppi, about the same pixel density as the current 15" G4 PowerBook -- a bump of from older pixel densities, but still not at the squinty extremes of some laptops.
As for processors, I suspect that all MacBook non-Pro models will be single core, making dual core one of the primary Pro-line distinctions.
I'd guess that, at least at first, built-in iSight will be a Pro-only feature too.
I'm just hoping that I don't get stuck with a choice between small and non-Pro and at-least-15" and Pro. I want a 12-13" Pro model for myself.
I'm in the same boat as you. I love the PowerBook 12 incher. While the screen size is "small", anything bigger than it makes the whole laptop a bit too big. I bought a 14" iBook last March and I wish I woulda gotten the 12" one. I hope they release a 12" or 13" MacBook Pro, or have the MacBook with VERY similar specs (mostly I just want isight built-in as well as front row...and the optical audio....and a high screen res).
kinda of feeling this will be the new product line up
13.3 or 14.1", 15.4" MacBook
13.3 or 14.1", 15.4", 17" MacBook Pro
but but 12" or 13.3" which is common display size?
Originally posted by shanmugam
but but 12" or 13.3" which is common display size?
Well 13.3" and 14" widescreens are pretty common, and so are smaller 10" and 11" widescreens (Sony, notably).
I'd personally love a subnotebook at 10 or 11" sans optical drive because for me that would be awesome. Do I expect it? Not really. Apple likes to equate screen size up = price up, and subnotebooks are one of the pricier market segments. Give it a decent graphics card and the features of the larger notebooks and make room by tossing the optical drive, maybe using iPod sized HD, and the ULV Intel Core Solo processor. It wouldn't really be a 12" replacement because of the price though, I suspect the new MacBook (iBook) would have to fill that spot.
I will freely admit it would be a niche, but a big one in SE Asia and Japan and among frequent travelers elsewhere.
A line up like so, would be nice.
Listed from cheapest to expensive. All widescreen, natch.
13.3" or 14" MacBook
15.4" PowerBook (Correct me, and die)
PowerBook Nano at 10/11" (might be cheaper, might be more expensive then 15.4")
17" PowerBook
Originally posted by Electric Monk
I'd personally love a subnotebook at 10 or 11" sans optical drive because for me that would be awesome. Do I expect it? Not really.
It seems likely to me that Apple will expand its notebook offerings in the not-too-distant future. And something branded as a "Mini" or "Nano" machine would seem to be the order of the day.
However, I don't see this falling in the "Power" range as you suggested. I think we'll see a MacBook Mini offered as the low-barrier-to-entry equivelant to the Mac Mini on the desktop side. Entry-level specs, low price, but attractively packaged with a small footprint. Meant for those who want to test the waters with Apple, for just a little more than the cost of a high-end iPod. Or a second, portable Mac that is just too inexpensive to resist, for those who already have a solid desktop. Great for email/surfing. Word processing. Or watching movies that you've purchased from the iTunes movies store (because there is no optical drive).
Just ballparks on the prices and features, but in a very general sense, this is how I would see the range of portables shaking out. (Mini on the bottom!)
MacBook Pro
13?, 15?, and 17? wide-screen.
All core duo.
1.67 MHz in the 13?. 1.83 MHz in the 17?. Your choice in the 15?.
Same basic features across the line, including iSight, card slot, and lit keyboard (finally!).
Range in price from $1,499 - $2,799.
MacBook
13? wide-screen (one size only).
Built-in iSight. Remote and Front Row. Superdrive.
No card slot, spanning, or lit keys.
Lesser graphics card than MPB.
Plastic shell available in white or black.
1.67 MHz core solo around $999.
1.67 MHz core duo around $1,299.
MacBook Mini
11? wide-screen.
Remote and Front Row included.
No optical drive. No iSight.
Lamest video card they can get away with.
Ultra-portable.
Core solo or some older/slower/cheaper Intel solution.
Starts at $699. More souped up versions available.
If this is what the line looked like, I'd take 2 core duo 13" black MacBooks...
Paul
Originally posted by paulumos
MacBook Pro
13?, 15?, and 17? wide-screen.
All core duo.
1.67 MHz in the 13?. 1.83 MHz in the 17?. Your choice in the 15?.
Same basic features across the line, including iSight, card slot, and lit keyboard (finally!).
Range in price from $1,499 - $2,799.
MacBook
13? wide-screen (one size only).
Built-in iSight. Remote and Front Row. Superdrive.
No card slot, spanning, or lit keys.
Lesser graphics card than MPB.
Plastic shell available in white or black.
1.67 MHz core solo around $999.
1.67 MHz core duo around $1,299.
MacBook Mini
11? wide-screen.
Remote and Front Row included.
No optical drive. No iSight.
Lamest video card they can get away with.
Ultra-portable.
Core solo or some older/slower/cheaper Intel solution.
Starts at $699. More souped up versions available.
If this is what the line looked like, I'd take 2 core duo 13" black ibooks...
Paul [/B]
I would think that the MacBook (Ibook) would have a 15" widscreen available for those college students/ others who do not want a macbook pro 15" (1,999) but want a bigger screen. Also I like the idea of the Macbook Mini but no optical drive come on man, thats something so basic it should definetly be included. Also just something to bring to the table, maybe because Ipod Mini was replaced by Nano, that Mac Mini will become Mac Nano. Just saying and no i dont have any inside information.
Originally posted by paulumos
MacBook Pro
13?, 15?, and 17? wide-screen.
All core duo.
1.67 MHz in the 13?. 1.83 MHz in the 17?. Your choice in the 15?.
Same basic features across the line, including iSight, card slot, and lit keyboard (finally!).
Range in price from $1,499 - $2,799.
MacBook
13? wide-screen (one size only).
Built-in iSight. Remote and Front Row. Superdrive.
No card slot, spanning, or lit keys.
Lesser graphics card than MPB.
Plastic shell available in white or black.
1.67 MHz core solo around $999.
1.67 MHz core duo around $1,299.
MacBook Mini
11? wide-screen.
Remote and Front Row included.
No optical drive. No iSight.
Lamest video card they can get away with.
Ultra-portable.
Core solo or some older/slower/cheaper Intel solution.
Starts at $699. More souped up versions available.
Paulumos, it's the best predictions I've ever read on the subject, congratulations!
I 100% agree with the MacBook Pro line. Really nothing more too say.
For the MacBook line, however, I think that the Core Duo and even the Core Solo is too expensive to be put inside a $999/1299 entry-level notebook Mac. I know that Intel is prepping single core yonah-based Celeron M chips with only 1MB of L2 cache and a 533MHz FSB, those chips are supposed to cost $100-135, half the list price of the Core Solo/Duo chips, with speeds up to 1.73GHz. Apple could use those chips for:
MacBook 11.1" WXGA 1.4GHz Celeron M 410 $699
MacBook 13.3" WXGA 1.6GHz Celeron M 420 $999
MacBook 15.4" WXGA 1.7GHz Celeron M 430 $1299
and for:
Mac mini 1.4GHz Celeron M 410 $499
Mac mini 1.6GHz Celeron M 420 $599
Mac mini 1.7GHz Celeron M 430 $699
2006 will certainly be very interesting!
So I imagine all rev A intels to be like:
imac - 2 sizes, 2 configs
mac mini - 1 size, 2 configs
macbook pro - 1 size, 2 configs
imacbook - 1 size, 2 configs
Mac Pro(powermac) - 1 size, 2 configs(with the quad being god over them)
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE Mac Media Hub - 1 size, 1 config
I see all that happening in 2006. Then in 2007 the lines branch out with more sizes and eventually more configs for some lines looking like this perhaps.
imac - 2 sizes, 2 configs
mac mini - 1 size, 2 configs
macbook pro - 11, 15, 17inch
imacbook - 13, 15inch
Mac Pro(powermac) - 1 size, 3 configs(quad god restored)
Mac Media Hub - 1 size, 2 configs
I think that's a reasonable and reasonably paced roadmap.
Originally posted by ecking
It'll be called "iMacBook" I said this a couple weeks ago and I'm saying it again.
That name rolls right off the tongue, almost as easily as MacBook Pro.
If Apple was considering any name other than MacBook as a replacement for iBook, I don't think we'd have MacBook "Pro."
Originally posted by hegor
All the speculation over the Macbook is a good read. Much better than the stuck with the G4 days.
That being said, I don't see Apple going with intel integrated graphics. Radeon X300 anyone?
Core Solo @1.67
512 MB ram
40 MB HD
CD/RW
Radeon X300 32 MB
$999
Core Solo @1.67
512 MB ram
80 MB HD
Superdrive
Radeon X300 64 MB
$1299
Apple really can't be seen to be selling a computer with just CDRW at that price. Apple hardware needs Superdrive standard - except on the very lowest spec Mac Mini perhaps.