Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MacWorld Keynote Announces x86 iMac & Laptop

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jan 10, 2006 01:49 PM
from the watch-him-talk dept.
Steve Jobs began giving his keynote at 9am local time, PST. The action was posted live at MacRumorsLive, and Engadget. From the Engadget liveblog: "How many [iPods] did we sell last quarter? Some of the estimates were getting astronomical - 8 million, 9 million. I'm really pleased to announce that last quarter we sold 14 million iPods .. that is over a hundred every minute, 24/7 throughout the quarter. And it still wasnt enough. We've now sold over 42 million iPods -- as you can see the curve is going up again" MacWorld and Ars Technica has coverage as well. The shiniest news: MacBook Pro. iSight, Front Row; $1999 1.67 Core Duo; 667 DDR bus, Radeon x1600; $2499 1.83GHz. Intel chip.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Pfhor (40220) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @01:53PM (#14438122) Homepage
    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro [apple.com]

    Dropped FW 800 and cardbus.
    • by grahams (5366) * on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:02PM (#14438258) Homepage
      Worth noting that the CardBus slot has been replaced with a ExpressCard/34 slot.
      • Re:No modem. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jellomizer (103300) * on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:52PM (#14438946)
        Like the absence of the Floppy Disk less then a decade ago.
        Most hotels and buisnesses use WiFi 802.11b/g. If you really want the modem you get a USB one. But for most systems now it is becoming one of those unused ports. on my powerbook I used my Modem like 4 times in 4 years. Once to see if it worked, 3 Times after I moved waiting for my Cable to be hooked up. Modems are no longer as nessary as they use to be.
  • MacBook Pro (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Have Blue (616) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @01:56PM (#14438170) Homepage
    We CANNOT allow "MacBook Pro" to take off. Everyone needs to keep calling them Powerbooks. I don't care what Apple says. If customers keep coming into the stores asking for Powerbooks maybe they will come to their senses.

    Really, all the top Mac news sites and blogs need to get on board with this. It is NOT a "MacBook Pro". It is and always will be a Powerbook.
  • A little history (Score:5, Interesting)

    by toupsie (88295) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @01:58PM (#14438199) Homepage
    This isn't the first "Duo" Apple has released in notebook form [everymac.com]. The original PowerBook Duo was a very cool machine for its time.
  • by rampant mac (561036) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:05PM (#14438305)
    From Apple's site [apple.com]:

    Power Up With MagSafe

    The new power adapter with MagSafe connector is designed to magnetically guide your cord into place and disconnect smoothly if someone (else) trips over it.

    ---

    I think that's awesome. I can't tell you how many times I've grabbed my PowerBook thinking it wasn't plugged in, only to have the chord yanked out, or worse, have the laptop almost pulled out of my hands.

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:06PM (#14438329)
    MACBOOKPRO! ~ PC OR KABOOM!
  • by patiwat (126496) <[patiwat] [at] [sloan.mit.edu]> on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:08PM (#14438352)
    The product mix has stopped making sense, although only temporarily. In the portable line they have iBook G4 and MacBook Pro intel; in the desktop line they have iMac intel and PowerMac G5.

    iMac that's as powerful as a PowerMac? Who's gonna wanna buy PowerMacs for the next couple months? Does Apple expect to make so much profit from the iMac intel over the coming months than the forgone profit from lost PowerMac G5 sales? I would think that the PowerMac G5 made a much higher profit than the iMac.

    And a MacBook Pro that's 10x more powerful than a iBook?!? There goes the iBook market...

    Anybody else see the logic of transitioning the consumer desktop and pro laptop first, rather than starting with the consumer desktop and laptop, or the pro desktop and laptop, or the pro desktop and consumer laptop, or some other combination?
    • by The Phantom Mensch (52436) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:29PM (#14438634)
      I think you have to turn the question around and ask yourself: What can Apple meet the demand for now? This makes the product rollout a little more sensible. Apple probably couldn't sell an Intel iBook laptop for $1299 right from the start and meet the demand. They definitely couldn't do that with a $499 Mac mini. But the pro laptop will sell to anyone that has a PowerMac G5 for their heavy CPU work on legacy apps that aren't yet in a Universal binary. And a consumer desktop will sell because most consumer desktop users don't install much more than the already bundled iLife and maybe Office and some games.
    • by NilObject (522433) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:32PM (#14438670) Homepage
      And a MacBook Pro that's 10x more powerful than a iBook?!? There goes the iBook market...


      The iBook is 1/2 the price of the MacBook Pro, which is enough of a differentiation, really. But yeah, that MacBook Pro is one juicy piece of hardware. You're right, though, it's certainly an awkward product lineup.

      I believe the current "funk" in the product line is entirely a product of the fact that the transition to Intel is going to be uneven as the engineering teams work on each individual model to bring them in to the Intel future. The iMac is equivalent in power to a PowerMac, it looks like, which only bodes well for the next PowerMac ("MacDesktop Pro"? "Mac Pro"?) - that puppy will be one seriously powerful monster.

      But like Steve said, they'll be transitioning them throughout the year. I imagine that once all the machines are moved over, the pricing will settle a bit and we'll get back our 12" and 17" laptop models.

      My 12" PowerBook used to seem so powerful... Cripes.
    • by javaxman (705658) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:51PM (#14438935) Journal
      Anybody else see the logic of transitioning the consumer desktop and pro laptop first, rather than ... some other combination?

      What machines does Apple make the largest markup on ?

      Profit is the only motive that makes sense to me. Consider that Apple knows it's going to be seeing a somewhat limited supply of chips and chipsets from Intel. With that as a given, where do they want to put those chips- in low-margin designs like the Mac mini and iBook, or in higher-margin designs like the desktop and pro laptop ?

      Also, what chipset would Apple put in a lower-end machine ? I'm going to guess that due to Apple using Trusted Computing crap to keep you from building your own MacIntel and pirating OS X, they're not going to use any chipsets ( and thus chips ) that are pre-Yonah, so the low end of what they have right now is the slower 1.3-1.6Ghz Duo Core chip... too powerful and expensive for real low-margin machines, so... no low-end Mac Intels for now, and we won't see any until Intel introduces newer chips that can move in on the high end, maybe. Of course, I'm just speculating, but nothing else makes sense to me... I don't think there's a pure market-based reason for Apple to abandon the low end, I think it's just what they're able to do right now.

      Too bad, too, I think that if Apple weren't so paranoid about OS X ending up on a Dell, they'd be able to make a seriously cheap Mac mini based on a Pentium M or something...

  • Low Resolution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NotoriousQ (457789) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:10PM (#14438381) Homepage
    Am I the only person who thinks that 1440x900 is a pretty low resolution for a 15" laptop?

    My 10" laptop has 1280x768 for goodness sakes.

  • MagSafe connector (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bravehamster (44836) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:15PM (#14438447) Homepage Journal
    I'm just damn excited about the MagSafe connector. Probably half of all the laptop hardware repairs I've done were to replace the power connector. It's one of the weakest points in current design, and I'm glad to see someone finally innovating along that front. Although, if this catches on it will mean declines in laptop repair revenue....
  • FM Tuner (Score:5, Funny)

    by dynayellow (106690) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:24PM (#14438579)
    An FM tuner is announced and there's No bitching about OGG? I am so disappointed in all of you.
  • by javaxman (705658) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:29PM (#14438633) Journal
    I know I shouldn't bitch about it, and I think I understand why, but it's a real bummer that Apple was unable to announce a low-end Intel machine today.

    Why not package the new iMac guts in a case without a monitor? I understand the desire to use their allotment of Yonah processors in the machines that will give them the highest markup, but all the PC fanboys are going to complain now that they don't want to pay for a monitor just to upgrade their machines... and even Mac fanboys aren't going to buy PowerMacs, iBooks, or Mac minis when iMacs and this ( IMHO poorly named ) "Mac Book Pro" are so far ahead of them and clearly on the way out, if not already gone.

    Anyone have thoughts on why there were no Mac mini, iBook, or eMac updates ( or Intel conversions ) today ? What is going to happen there ?

    • by grungebox (578982) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @01:55PM (#14438150) Homepage
      I think the name is a little weird. Wasn't MacBook the guy that guy in that one play that British dude wrote? "Lay On, MacBook."
    • Unimportant... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @01:59PM (#14438227)
      Macbook sounds offensive and computer illiterate.

      What do you guys think?


      The art of choosing strategically well thought out product names is a declining art these days, I need only point to "Windows Defender". While most of us nerds know that Windows is on the defensive in the malware department there is no reason to let the uninitiated masses of Windows users know about it, they think the current situation is normal.

      Not that I really care about the 'stupidity' of the MacBook name and I do agree with you that it is kinda clumsy. What I care about is what this MacBook can do and how soon I can get my filthy paws on one. Now if you will excuse me I have to go and empty my piggybank....
    • by compactable (714182) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:55PM (#14438991) Homepage
      ... WhatWhat TheThe FsckFsck.

      ... brought to you via the Apple Marketing name generation tool : iStutter

      Sheesh ...

      • Re:Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:25PM (#14438593) Homepage Journal
        I'm not so much upset about the name...but, that built in iSight camera has me a little weird...

        Just how long will it be before someone 'hacks' a way in to view through it at any time?

        These days, a lot of people leave their machines on 24/6...I pretty much do all of mine. You've just put up a ready built survellience (sp?) system on yourself, and you might not even know it. Bad for personal usage, but, what if this was in a company somwhere...makes it easy to spy on you.

        Will there be a neat little iPatch that you can slip over the camera to prevent is seeing anything?

        :-)

        • Re:Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

          by tdemark (512406) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:32PM (#14438679) Homepage
          Just how long will it be before someone 'hacks' a way in to view through it at any time?

          With the switch to Intel, I can see why you're a little confused... these will be running Mac OS X, not Windows.

        • Re:Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

          by squeee (849323) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:54PM (#14438975)
          "These days, a lot of people leave their machines on 24/6"
          And on the seventh day Jobs rested and saw what he had made, and saw that it was good.
          • Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by flosofl (626809) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @03:41PM (#14439553) Homepage
            You've read 1984, haven't you? Those weren't TVs, they were computers.

            Yes, because as everyone knows the Mac has so saturated the market to be near ubiquitous.
    • by Trurl's Machine (651488) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:03PM (#14438282) Journal
      This is it. Never Microsoft Windows again. Not one more second of pain.

      In fact, while I was always die-hard Apple supporter (I'm typing this on my fourth Apple-branded laptop) I appreciate the fact that now I will be able to dual boot in Windows and play the games not-yet or not-at-all released for MacOS. I actually do have a copy of "Deus Ex 2" waiting for the release of Intel-based Macs. Now I'll be able to dust it off... and play on a soon-to-be-mine iMac.
      • by c0d3h4x0r (604141) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:33PM (#14438692) Homepage Journal
        appreciate the fact that now I will be able to dual boot in Windows and play the games

        Actually, this is the most important remaining question about this entire announcement. Is it really the case that one can install Windows on Apple's new hardware? Can any geeks out there truly verify this? Has anyone actually gotten the shipping hardware and tried to install Windows on it and successfully gotten it up and running with a dual-boot configuration?

        It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has implemented some kind of unique encrypted handshaking between the OS X installer and the hardware so that only Apple's OS can be installed on it, so that they can avoid receiving support calls from people who put Windows on Apple hardware. Keep in mind that even if they refuse to provide support for such a configuration, the bulk of a support call's cost is in the customer placing the call in the first place. If someone calls only to be told "we don't support that", that has already cost Apple a good bit of money.

        • by Trurl's Machine (651488) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @03:04PM (#14439119) Journal
          It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has implemented some kind of unique encrypted handshaking between the OS X installer and the hardware so that only Apple's OS can be installed on it, so that they can avoid receiving support calls from people who put Windows on Apple hardware. Keep in mind that even if they refuse to provide support for such a configuration, the bulk of a support call's cost is in the customer placing the call in the first place. If someone calls only to be told "we don't support that", that has already cost Apple a good bit of money.

          They won't support that, but they declared already that they will do nothing to prevent it. After Apple Intel FAQ [appleintelfaq.com]:

          After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that.
      • Re:The MacBook Pro (Score:5, Informative)

        by lpontiac (173839) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:03PM (#14438284)
        No the first use power for macs came with the first PPC systems. I still have my lowly Power mac 7100/66 with a killer 2meg video card and hold on, 32megs or ram.
        PowerBook 100 [everymac.com]. Released October 1991 with a 68HC000 processor.
      • Re:The MacBook Pro (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tak amalak (55584) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:27PM (#14438607)
        Sure but you'd still not be able to run MacOS X, the purpose behind getting a Mac in the first place.
      • Re:The MacBook Pro (Score:5, Informative)

        by jokell82 (536447) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:40PM (#14438788) Homepage
        Ok, I'll play that game. To get a comparable system, you need to do some serious upgrading to the Gateway. XP Pro (which is free for a limited time), Office Basic (as the mac comes with iWork '06), a single 512mb stick of ram (only available in 533mhz modules, oh well), upgraded graphics, upgraded monitor (the MacBook has a 1440x1960 resolution, closest option on the gateway is the 1400x1040), upgraded hard drive, upgraded optical drive, and upgraded bluetooth.

        All of that to get it *almost* equal to the MacBook is $1814.98. Plus, that does not come with a firewire camera, nor a remote control, not to mention all the software Apple bundles in for free.

        So the premium is $185.02, and that's only if the additional hardware and software standard on the MacBook are worthless to you.
      • Re:The MacBook Pro (Score:5, Informative)

        by 2nd Post! (213333) <`gundbear' `at' `pacbell.net'> on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:41PM (#14438796) Homepage
        That extra $550 can be measured in five things:
        Size and weight(which translates to engineering and design), since the Gateway is 1.3" thick and 6lb and the MacBook is 1" thick and 5.6lb
        Dual link DVI; the Gateway only has VGA and s-video, while the MacBook can power the new Dell or the old Apple 30" LCD.
        Software: The MacBook comes with iLife, OS X, iChat, etc
        Hardware: The MacBook comes with a 640x480 30fps build in video camera
        QA: I think Apple notebooks are slightly more reliable than Gateway... but feel free to buy the Gateway if that extra $100 savings means that much to you

        All five things together work to roughly $110 per point, don't you think?
    • Re:Chip Speed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JPamplin (804322) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:09PM (#14438360)
      The Yonah architecture is the next generation of the Pentium-M - the mobile chip first designed by their Israel design team. It's small, faster at lower clock speeds, and uses less power than the Pentium 4 chips, which you are referring to.

      This is a dual-core 2Ghz Yonah which I daresay will blow the doors off of a 3Ghz P4 Prescott, and run much cooler, which is necessary in a case that thin (the iMac case) when coolers are space-limited.

      Did you post anonymously because you knew that was just a stupid question, or are you just now figuring this out?

      Keep it up, genius. ;-)
    • Re:FIrewire 800 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spencerian (465343) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:19PM (#14438514) Homepage Journal
      The lack of FireWire 800 may be due to a lack of adoption to the interface (although its speeds do exceed FW 400 and USB2).

      Another likelihood to the lack of FW 800 includes Intel (who developed the USB spec and may have asked Apple to push USB2 instead), as well as problems in heat or design that prohibited use of FW 800. I'm betting for simplicity + Intel pressure. We've already seen Apple choose USB2 as its dominate sync interface for iPods, and this is a reflection of that change.

      Overall, not a bad introduction for a new 'book, but betware the Rev1 Effect. Remember the first PowerPC systems? Not bad, BUT...
    • Re:FIrewire 800 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stienman (51024) <adavis@@@ubasics...com> on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:42PM (#14438820) Homepage Journal
      What happened? Where's the Firewire 800?

      USB 2.0 comes practically free with any modern chipset. Firewire does not. A good firewire interface will take 2-3 sq inches of PCB realestate, and add $1-2 to the total cost. The only area where firewire gained some market hold was with digital video cameras, and those now include USB 2.0. Lastly, very few pieces of equipment can even use firewire 800 to it's fullest. USB 2.0 is cheap enough and fast enough to do 99% of what needs to get done. Further you don't have as much customer confusion between ports and cable types and powered vs unpowered ports.

      So all that means is that there's a very small slice of people who need firewire for which USB cannot work. They can get a card in the laptop, and Apple can save a few dollars per Mac.

      Those who complain about it most are usually doing so for emotional reasons more than logical reasons. Much like those complaining that the new notebook should be referred to as a "Powerbook." They like Apple; Apple came out with firewire; ergo they like firewire. Nevermind that few new peripherals support firewire, and even fewer support only firwire and not USB. Nevermind that similar USB only peripherals are generally cheaper and perform as well as if not better than the equivilant firewire peripheral. Firewire lost in the market. Apple has acknowledged that. Let's move on.

      -Adam
    • by guidryp (702488) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @02:53PM (#14438969)
      A: Clock for clock the G5 is faster than the Pentium 4 architecture, so you were told the truth.

      B: Clock for clock the Pentium M based Core Duo chip is faster than the G5. So again the truth.

      Mix in some marketing (aka exagerations) and you have your situation.

      Statement A: was meaningless because the P4 architecture always ran at a much faster clock speed which made it faster in actual use. So Intel in practical terms has pretty much always been faster.

      It helps to ignore marketing and think for yourself what you want.

      I never bought a Mac before but I might get one this year becasue I like the new architecture. I am waiting on a new Mini. I hope it uses the new Core Duo and runs cool and quiet. I hope they aren't putting the core solo in the mini as I would have to keep waiting...

      • Re:Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CerebusUS (21051) on Tuesday January 10 2006, @03:39PM (#14439540)
        Running MS Windows on a MacBook Pro is like letting a retarded kid drive a Ferrari.

        Yeah, but at least the retarded kid gets to play F.E.A.R. and Warhammer 40,000:Dawn of War.

        While driving the Ferrari.

        Or does the metaphor break down at that point?