yah, the more I'm hearing, the more I think they'll definitely stick with the same plastic they have, so they can keep the white, and because its cheaper.
Now some very small accents in the shiny iPod metal surface would look really sharp.
And the colors will be black, white and red. Red for that AIDS awareness thing.
I was just about to say, why hasn't anyone mentioned the red AIDS awareness tie in!? There were rumors of the red iPod for Bono's Product Red project awhile ago. I think if they were to add color options, they would most likely be just white and black, and possibly a special edition Product Red version. As discussed with the iPod, this would could be very appealing to people who want to show their support for HIV/AIDS awareness.
As already mentioned though, I think the cost is the deal breaker. If Apple can have color options while keeping the price down, then it's a real possibility. If not....don't hold your breath.
On another note.... Regarding the iSight, is it a given the MacBook will have one? Anyone think the iSight will differentiate between standard and pro? Or, is Apple definitely moving towards full integration into the whole line? Thoughts?
On another note.... Regarding the iSight, is it a given the MacBook will have one? Anyone think the iSight will differentiate between standard and pro? Or, is Apple definitely moving towards full integration into the whole line? Thoughts? [/B]
I'd venture to say that the MacBook will have iSight... Though it could be used for business practices, iSight is not really a pro function... It seems to be geared more towards family/friends or consumer users.. The iMac is not a pro machine and it has iSight, I think MacBook will too.
A protective layer is always used, whether it is dyed or not. The cells have to be sealed. It can even be done with hot water, but the commercial process is more effective.
Yes, sorry: I meant a more complete protective process than the normal industrial one - at least, according to what I've read. My own experience is with the toolshed boiling water approach*
As you stated earlier, and contrary to some opinion here, white anodizing can be done, though it is not perfect. I have seen some pretty decent results nevertheless.
All that said, I think it's a moot point as I think it highly unlikely that the Mac/iBooks will be aluminum.
ColorWare, yeah. Sadly, their jobs are frequently beaten by the ugly stick. sunil's results look interesting. Nothing for purists, but I'm sure they'd sell.
ColorWare, yeah. Sadly, their jobs are frequently beaten by the ugly stick. sunil's results look interesting. Nothing for purists, but I'm sure they'd sell.
Are there issues with the quality of the finish, or don't you like the colors offered?
Good news... I wonder why they're not calling them Core Solo? Anyway, those parts ought to let Apple get to somewhere near $799.
There could be trademark issues. That is one reason some products don't have the same name across the globe. I think Core Solo would be preferable for Intel because Celeron got such a bad rap for being cache-starved and such, the latest Celeron-Ms are fine in that respect. That said, maybe they want to keep that tier for marketing purposes, those Cel-Ms don't have the same FSB as the Core Solo.
There could be trademark issues. That is one reason some products don't have the same name across the globe. I think Core Solo would be preferable for Intel because Celeron got such a bad rap for being cache-starved and such, the latest Celeron-Ms are fine in that respect. That said, maybe they want to keep that tier for marketing purposes, those Cel-Ms don't have the same FSB as the Core Solo.
I think they simply want to differentiate between the two lines.
There could be trademark issues. That is one reason some products don't have the same name across the globe. I think Core Solo would be preferable for Intel because Celeron got such a bad rap for being cache-starved and such, the latest Celeron-Ms are fine in that respect. That said, maybe they want to keep that tier for marketing purposes, those Cel-Ms don't have the same FSB as the Core Solo.
They call them Celeron-M instead of Core Solo for the same reason they've Celeron and Pentium. The correct question to ask is why the Cores aren't called Pentium-M, since that's what they are. Intel's Core Architecure doesn't arrive until Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest.
Celeron-Ms have half the cache at 1MB and only a 533Mhz FSB instead of 2MB and 667Mhz on the Core Solo. That still makes them pretty spiffy IMHO.
Celerons got a bad rap for being cache starved in about 1995 when they first came out. They've been good chips (by comparison to the Pentium anyway) since the second rev.
Saying that, I'd doubt Apple would use one now in an iBook now that the low end Mini has a Core Solo. Unless of course they introduce a lower-end Mini with a Celeron-M. That's not unfeasible given that the Mini doesn't go as low end as the old G4 model did.
They call them Celeron-M instead of Core Solo for the same reason they've Celeron and Pentium. The correct question to ask is why the Cores aren't called Pentium-M, since that's what they are. Intel's Core Architecure doesn't arrive until Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest.
Celeron-Ms have half the cache at 1MB and only a 533Mhz FSB instead of 2MB and 667Mhz on the Core Solo. That still makes them pretty spiffy IMHO.
Celerons got a bad rap for being cache starved in about 1995 when they first came out. They've been good chips (by comparison to the Pentium anyway) since the second rev.
Saying that, I'd doubt Apple would use one now in an iBook now that the low end Mini has a Core Solo. Unless of course they introduce a lower-end Mini with a Celeron-M. That's not unfeasible given that the Mini doesn't go as low end as the old G4 model did.
I think that, like Apple, they want to sweep out the old names. Until Prescott, Pentium was a positive point fot Intel, but with all of Prescotts troubles, I think they want to get people to stop thinking about it, and start anew. The Core series looks to be a winner, and so I think they want people to focus on that.
So when's it going to be? Beginning of May, nice black laptop as a sort of iBook fifth anniversary wake, or what?
Wish list -- and this is a WISH list, I don't necessarily expect it . . .
LED screen (some PC books already have it, it saves power).
The successor chip to the Intel 950 integrated graphics (unfortunately this probably isn't quite ready for market yet, but it would be Radeon 9600 performance with integrated graphics energy efficiency).
1280x800 display (fear it will settle for 1280x720).
Keyboard up to 12 inch Powerbook standards.
Battery life equal to current 14 inch iBook or better.
8X Superdrive as per 14 inch iBook.
At least same port selection as Mac Mini (three USB, FW400, DVI/Mini DVI, Gigabit Ethernet).
Core Duo 1.66GHz, as per Mac Mini.
It would be cool to have a Nano style click-wheel on the side of the mousepad, it could be used with itunes, imovie and webpages; plus it would make the connection between iPods and macs in the minds of windoze users and the general public.
...Saying that, I'd doubt Apple would use one now in an iBook now that the low end Mini has a Core Solo. Unless of course they introduce a lower-end Mini with a Celeron-M. That's not unfeasible given that the Mini doesn't go as low end as the old G4 model did.
Overall IMHO Apple won't touch the Celeron-M with a 10-foot pole. I think the 1.5ghz Core Solo in the Mac mini is the absolute baseline. Given the doubts about the Intel transition I think they want to bank off the Core name and strongly market Core as the engine of the Intel Macs, with Core providing whatever Apple deems an acceptable level of Intel Mac performance. We might see Ultra Low Voltage Cores but again, IMHO, Celeron-M is a bit too far down the ladder for Apple to bother with.
AFAIK people have mentioned the 1.5ghz Core Solo in the Mac mini is pretty spiffy as it is, and acceptable even with 512mb RAM being shared with the video card.
Now all this said, I wonder what the clock speeds are going to be on the Intel MacBooks. My stab in the dark is no lower than 1.5ghz.
As we can see from Victor Wang's (see above post) overclocking of the Celeron-M up to 3ghz, clock speed is really just a marketing thing with the 65nm Yonahs. Intel fabs push out these CPUs and clock speed is really just a matter of setting what speed you want and then marketing it appropriately, taking battery life into consideration. Intel has somehow very intelligently streamlined it's manufacturing with the 65nm Yonahs and this is something Steve Jobs must be quite happy with - ample supply, wide range of choices, easy setting of clock speeds for marketing purposes, and streamlined manufacturing to give him all the choices he needs to just focus on the specific hardware he wants to put out. A far cry from IBM's G5 fiascos.
I can't wait to see what 65nm Conroe dualcores can pump out compared the the G5 dualies on Universal apps benchmarks.
Comments
please God no macbook that looks like those.
my eyes!
Ah, admit it, you love the bottom two. Groovy, man....
Originally posted by palegolas
Perhaps something like this:
(These patterns are from BagIT)
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
yah, the more I'm hearing, the more I think they'll definitely stick with the same plastic they have, so they can keep the white, and because its cheaper.
Now some very small accents in the shiny iPod metal surface would look really sharp.
And the colors will be black, white and red. Red for that AIDS awareness thing.
I was just about to say, why hasn't anyone mentioned the red AIDS awareness tie in!? There were rumors of the red iPod for Bono's Product Red project awhile ago. I think if they were to add color options, they would most likely be just white and black, and possibly a special edition Product Red version. As discussed with the iPod, this would could be very appealing to people who want to show their support for HIV/AIDS awareness.
As already mentioned though, I think the cost is the deal breaker. If Apple can have color options while keeping the price down, then it's a real possibility. If not....don't hold your breath.
On another note.... Regarding the iSight, is it a given the MacBook will have one? Anyone think the iSight will differentiate between standard and pro? Or, is Apple definitely moving towards full integration into the whole line? Thoughts?
Originally posted by miguelcolina
[B
On another note.... Regarding the iSight, is it a given the MacBook will have one? Anyone think the iSight will differentiate between standard and pro? Or, is Apple definitely moving towards full integration into the whole line? Thoughts? [/B]
I'd venture to say that the MacBook will have iSight... Though it could be used for business practices, iSight is not really a pro function... It seems to be geared more towards family/friends or consumer users.. The iMac is not a pro machine and it has iSight, I think MacBook will too.
Originally posted by melgross
A protective layer is always used, whether it is dyed or not. The cells have to be sealed. It can even be done with hot water, but the commercial process is more effective.
Yes, sorry: I meant a more complete protective process than the normal industrial one - at least, according to what I've read. My own experience is with the toolshed boiling water approach*
As you stated earlier, and contrary to some opinion here, white anodizing can be done, though it is not perfect. I have seen some pretty decent results nevertheless.
All that said, I think it's a moot point as I think it highly unlikely that the Mac/iBooks will be aluminum.
* plenty of ventilation required.
Thanks, almost forgot! I just don't see a $999 MacBook as very likely... The mini increased $100, maybe the MacBook will too...
$1099?
The mini increased $100 because Apple added WiFi/BlueTooth standard, it was a $100 upgrade on the old machines.
Although the move to Intel probably also had something to do with that...
- Noah
Originally posted by solsun
Thanks, almost forgot! I just don't see a $999 MacBook as very likely... The mini increased $100, maybe the MacBook will too...
$1099?
Remember, the Mini increased in price because of the cost of the processor... Now those prices are supposed to drop soon...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30881
Originally posted by sunilraman
It's 7am now but I thought I'd get my cross-pimpin' of my mockups out the door. Some Macbook colours
Great job, nice fantasie, indeed, Sunil. But i doubt it is going to
happen anytime soon. I don't think that apple will leap into
this tinting business again, since they failed awfully not so long ago.
To colorize your Mac will remain the business of another company.
(To lazy to google it, but i am sure everybody knows that
particular company.)
Originally posted by melgross
Just throwing this into the mix.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1723
Good news... I wonder why they're not calling them Core Solo? Anyway, those parts ought to let Apple get to somewhere near $799.
Originally posted by Chucker
ColorWare, yeah. Sadly, their jobs are frequently beaten by the ugly stick. sunil's results look interesting. Nothing for purists, but I'm sure they'd sell.
Are there issues with the quality of the finish, or don't you like the colors offered?
Originally posted by cubist
Good news... I wonder why they're not calling them Core Solo? Anyway, those parts ought to let Apple get to somewhere near $799.
There could be trademark issues. That is one reason some products don't have the same name across the globe. I think Core Solo would be preferable for Intel because Celeron got such a bad rap for being cache-starved and such, the latest Celeron-Ms are fine in that respect. That said, maybe they want to keep that tier for marketing purposes, those Cel-Ms don't have the same FSB as the Core Solo.
Originally posted by JeffDM
There could be trademark issues. That is one reason some products don't have the same name across the globe. I think Core Solo would be preferable for Intel because Celeron got such a bad rap for being cache-starved and such, the latest Celeron-Ms are fine in that respect. That said, maybe they want to keep that tier for marketing purposes, those Cel-Ms don't have the same FSB as the Core Solo.
I think they simply want to differentiate between the two lines.
Just throwing this into the mix.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1723
HOLY F**K This dude overclocked the Yonah based 65nm Celeron-M on air to almost 1ghz FSB and 3.1ghz CPU
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=95550
Makes you wonder how much headroom there really is in Intel's 65nm Yonah Cores and CeleronMs...
Originally posted by JeffDM
There could be trademark issues. That is one reason some products don't have the same name across the globe. I think Core Solo would be preferable for Intel because Celeron got such a bad rap for being cache-starved and such, the latest Celeron-Ms are fine in that respect. That said, maybe they want to keep that tier for marketing purposes, those Cel-Ms don't have the same FSB as the Core Solo.
They call them Celeron-M instead of Core Solo for the same reason they've Celeron and Pentium. The correct question to ask is why the Cores aren't called Pentium-M, since that's what they are. Intel's Core Architecure doesn't arrive until Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest.
Celeron-Ms have half the cache at 1MB and only a 533Mhz FSB instead of 2MB and 667Mhz on the Core Solo. That still makes them pretty spiffy IMHO.
Celerons got a bad rap for being cache starved in about 1995 when they first came out. They've been good chips (by comparison to the Pentium anyway) since the second rev.
Saying that, I'd doubt Apple would use one now in an iBook now that the low end Mini has a Core Solo. Unless of course they introduce a lower-end Mini with a Celeron-M. That's not unfeasible given that the Mini doesn't go as low end as the old G4 model did.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
They call them Celeron-M instead of Core Solo for the same reason they've Celeron and Pentium. The correct question to ask is why the Cores aren't called Pentium-M, since that's what they are. Intel's Core Architecure doesn't arrive until Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest.
Celeron-Ms have half the cache at 1MB and only a 533Mhz FSB instead of 2MB and 667Mhz on the Core Solo. That still makes them pretty spiffy IMHO.
Celerons got a bad rap for being cache starved in about 1995 when they first came out. They've been good chips (by comparison to the Pentium anyway) since the second rev.
Saying that, I'd doubt Apple would use one now in an iBook now that the low end Mini has a Core Solo. Unless of course they introduce a lower-end Mini with a Celeron-M. That's not unfeasible given that the Mini doesn't go as low end as the old G4 model did.
I think that, like Apple, they want to sweep out the old names. Until Prescott, Pentium was a positive point fot Intel, but with all of Prescotts troubles, I think they want to get people to stop thinking about it, and start anew. The Core series looks to be a winner, and so I think they want people to focus on that.
Originally posted by photoeditor
So when's it going to be? Beginning of May, nice black laptop as a sort of iBook fifth anniversary wake, or what?
Wish list -- and this is a WISH list, I don't necessarily expect it . . .
LED screen (some PC books already have it, it saves power).
The successor chip to the Intel 950 integrated graphics (unfortunately this probably isn't quite ready for market yet, but it would be Radeon 9600 performance with integrated graphics energy efficiency).
1280x800 display (fear it will settle for 1280x720).
Keyboard up to 12 inch Powerbook standards.
Battery life equal to current 14 inch iBook or better.
8X Superdrive as per 14 inch iBook.
At least same port selection as Mac Mini (three USB, FW400, DVI/Mini DVI, Gigabit Ethernet).
Core Duo 1.66GHz, as per Mac Mini.
It would be cool to have a Nano style click-wheel on the side of the mousepad, it could be used with itunes, imovie and webpages; plus it would make the connection between iPods and macs in the minds of windoze users and the general public.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
Just throwing this into the mix.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1723
HOLY F**K This dude overclocked the Yonah based 65nm Celeron-M on air to almost 1ghz FSB and 3.1ghz CPU
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=95550
Makes you wonder how much headroom there really is in Intel's 65nm Yonah Cores and CeleronMs...
Yeah, Victor Wang does some cool shit.
...Saying that, I'd doubt Apple would use one now in an iBook now that the low end Mini has a Core Solo. Unless of course they introduce a lower-end Mini with a Celeron-M. That's not unfeasible given that the Mini doesn't go as low end as the old G4 model did.
Overall IMHO Apple won't touch the Celeron-M with a 10-foot pole. I think the 1.5ghz Core Solo in the Mac mini is the absolute baseline. Given the doubts about the Intel transition I think they want to bank off the Core name and strongly market Core as the engine of the Intel Macs, with Core providing whatever Apple deems an acceptable level of Intel Mac performance. We might see Ultra Low Voltage Cores but again, IMHO, Celeron-M is a bit too far down the ladder for Apple to bother with.
AFAIK people have mentioned the 1.5ghz Core Solo in the Mac mini is pretty spiffy as it is, and acceptable even with 512mb RAM being shared with the video card.
Now all this said, I wonder what the clock speeds are going to be on the Intel MacBooks. My stab in the dark is no lower than 1.5ghz.
As we can see from Victor Wang's (see above post) overclocking of the Celeron-M up to 3ghz, clock speed is really just a marketing thing with the 65nm Yonahs. Intel fabs push out these CPUs and clock speed is really just a matter of setting what speed you want and then marketing it appropriately, taking battery life into consideration. Intel has somehow very intelligently streamlined it's manufacturing with the 65nm Yonahs and this is something Steve Jobs must be quite happy with - ample supply, wide range of choices, easy setting of clock speeds for marketing purposes, and streamlined manufacturing to give him all the choices he needs to just focus on the specific hardware he wants to put out. A far cry from IBM's G5 fiascos.
I can't wait to see what 65nm Conroe dualcores can pump out compared the the G5 dualies on Universal apps benchmarks.