Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

MacWorld Keynote Announces x86 iMac & Laptop 1607

Posted by Zonk
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MacWorld Keynote Announces x86 iMac & Laptop

Comments Filter:
  • Stupid name (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:50PM (#14438088)
    Macbook sounds offensive and computer illiterate.

    What do you guys think?
    -Sj53
  • by torpor (458) <(ten.htnys) (ta) (vyaj)> on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:52PM (#14438108) Homepage Journal
    Anyone know what the projected Euro price is going to be? My girlfriend has been waiting for this release before she buys herself a laptop (she's a pro photographer) and its definitely going to be top of the list ..

    Man, dunno how i'm gonna feel on my lowly powerbook though .. how do you other geeks deal with girlfriends whose laptops are better than yours? aarrgghh ... :)
  • by Pfhor (40220) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:53PM (#14438122) Homepage
    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro [apple.com]

    Dropped FW 800 and cardbus.
  • by John Harrison (223649) <johnharrison AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:54PM (#14438137) Homepage Journal
    Can you load easily dual boot Windows on the new iMac and on the MacBook Pro? If you can then this opens up a new market of tepid switchers. It seems that Steve didn't mention this sort of functionality at all which leaves it as a big question mark for now.
  • by godawful (84526) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:55PM (#14438138)
    well, that was pretty decent, but kind of strange, yes new powerbooks were to be expected, but now the imacs are faster then the low and midrange powermacs.. i'm assuming in a few weeks we'll see them all go quad core..

    i wonder how long till ibooks and mini's
  • Photocasting? Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by prockcore (543967) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:55PM (#14438152)
    I like how Apple reinvents pheed [pheed.com] and calls it "Photocasting" as well as "incredibly new".

    Thanks Steve, but the Associated Press has been standardized on pheed for well over a year now.
  • MacBook Pro (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Have Blue (616) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:56PM (#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 @02:58PM (#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.
  • Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by anothermortal (577394) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @02:59PM (#14438213) Homepage
    I guess the real question is can it run Windows, Linux and OS X? What kind of black magic will we need to do to make it work?
    • Re:Windows? (Score:4, Funny)

      by hotspotbloc (767418) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @04:03PM (#14439107) Homepage Journal
      I guess the real question is can it run Windows ...?

      Running MS Windows on a MacBook Pro is like letting a retarded kid drive a Ferrari.

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

        by CerebusUS (21051) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @04:39PM (#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?
  • Big Money (Score:4, Informative)

    by dpofs10 (943514) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:01PM (#14438254)
    Wow, Apple stock is up almost 7% on this news.
  • by rampant mac (561036) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:05PM (#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 @03:06PM (#14438329)
    MACBOOKPRO! ~ PC OR KABOOM!
  • by patiwat (126496) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:08PM (#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 @03:29PM (#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 @03:32PM (#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 @03:51PM (#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...

  • I want one... NOW (Score:4, Interesting)

    by manno (848709) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:10PM (#14438379)
    I have never owned a mac, and have never wanted one... until right now.
  • Low Resolution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NotoriousQ (457789) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:10PM (#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.

    • Re:Low Resolution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by juuri (7678) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:59PM (#14439041) Homepage
      Every time an article comes up mentioning screen res someone always something along these lines. I suggest doing a google search on DPI and optimum DPI for working on computer screens. Apple chooses resolutions in a very deliberate matter based on what it is available *and* maintaining a sane DPI that is easy on the eyes for extended work.
      • Re:Low Resolution (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @04:23PM (#14439354) Homepage Journal
        I don't think there is an "optimal" dpi, otherwise laser printers wouldn't be higher than displays. What you mean in view of operating systems that are very limited in scaling UI object sizes, which is, all of the current major operating systems.

        A twelve point font should be twelve point, not necessarily twelve pixels. The way it is currently handled, fonts are too small on a 100dpi screen because points are 72dpi, yet operating systems simply render them as 12 pixels high. That makes text techically too small on pretty much any current LCD screen save maybe the 19" SXGA screens.

        I want higher resolution not necessarily to show more detail or show more text or have more objects on the screen, but have smoother fonts and UI elements rather than blocky edges.
  • by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:13PM (#14438429)
    The Acer Travelmate has the same components, faster processor, more ram, more storage space, but a cheaper price.

    Apple's doom is sealed if they are going to start charging more for the same thing you can get in the PC WORLD!

    Only difference, Apple is running OSX, so Apple should charge less then the Acer Travelmate, Acer has to pay Microsoft for Windows, Apple doesn't have to pay anybody for OSX.

    Apple doesn't get it. They have become PC OEM retailers and with the exception of the OS, every component is made by PC OEM manufacturers, but Apple thinks they can charge more for it. Brand recognition might drive big sales in the first few months, but eventually people are going to realize you can get the same performance in a PC product for cheaper without paying more for the branding, as has been the case for the last few years.

    Apple DIDN'T EVEN REDESIGN THE CASE!

    MacBook Pro = the biggest joke yet. Apple claims it is more then a PC, it IS a PC, just costs more.

    We can finally compare Apple's to Apple's now, I can't wait for the benchmarks that prove Apple isn't anything more then a PC with a different logo. Considering OSX has had lousy comparisons to similar Linux and Windows concepts (like threading performance, etc) which have been provem kernel related, I am sure that we will find that performance on the Mactels are probably not as good as with the same system running Linux or Windows.

    Good luck Apple! After a year of hype you have come out with a product that has already been on the market for months.
  • MagSafe connector (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bravehamster (44836) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:15PM (#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....
  • Battery Life? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blackmonday (607916) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:16PM (#14438469) Homepage
    Any word on the expected battery life of the MacBook Pro? I couldn't find any info anywhere, so I'm expecting it to be adequate at best. This is the laptop that finally replaces my 867 powerbook, but I might wait until the first revision. Battery life and heat ouptut are big considerations for me.

  • I feel abused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by el_womble (779715) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:16PM (#14438470) Homepage
    2x faster? 4x faster?

    We've been lied to horribly for the last 3-4 years. Clock for clock intels are as powerful as PowerPC. So when I bought my 1.8GHz iMac G5 it was already slower than equivalent PCs. Now thats all very well and good, except that Apple were screaming that it was faster, better, stronger. That you would be mad to even think about buying Intel, and I sucked it up. Its not even like they didn't know the truth. They've been developing Mac OS X on intel for the last 5 years, so they new they were onto a looser with PowerPC and they still over sold.

    Now I'm very happy with my Mac, but the smug sense of superiority that I bought with the Mac has been wiped out. I miss being inside the RDF.

    • by guidryp (702488) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:53PM (#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:I feel abused (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Krach42 (227798) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:53PM (#14438970) Homepage Journal
      We've been lied to horribly for the last 3-4 years.

      Not that long.

      Clock for clock intels are as powerful as PowerPC.

      Only now.

      So when I bought my 1.8GHz iMac G5 it was already slower than equivalent PCs.

      No, because it was faster than a 2.6 GHz P4. The Pentium 4 was a mistake (sacrificing power for clock speed on Intel's part) they've come to their senses now.

      Now thats all very well and good, except that Apple were screaming that it was faster, better, stronger.

      Because it was during the time that Apple was hyping it. Especially in the later days of the G4, and the early days of the G5. Apple mysteriously stopped updating any of their benchmarks before the announced switch to Intel, and even if they did update their benchmarks, it was only ever against older model Pentium 4's.

      That you would be mad to even think about buying Intel, and I sucked it up. Its not even like they didn't know the truth. They've been developing Mac OS X on intel for the last 5 years, so they new they were onto a looser with PowerPC and they still over sold.

      It's a hard thing to truely measure. As far as "scientific" and advanced math go, the G5 is still a better CPU, you can push much more high pressure data through it, but for the consumer the better choice is the new cores from Intel.

      In all cases, every G5 beats out any Pentium 4, those things were just stupid.
  • FM Tuner (Score:5, Funny)

    by dynayellow (106690) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @03:24PM (#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 @03:29PM (#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 pjcreath (513472) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @04:06PM (#14439147)
    There were rumblings about the Intel Macs dropping Classic support, but now it looks official. Compare the software specs for the PowerBook G4 [apple.com] to the MacBook Pro [apple.com].
  • by diamondsw (685967) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @05:19PM (#14439924)
    Okay, what's the rationale behind dropping things that existed on the "old" Powerbook?
    1. Firewire 800 - Sure, the iPod moved to USB and such. But why NOT use Firewire 800? You can plug Firewire 400 into it, but you wouldn't want to do the opposite (people bought 800 for a reason). Why would you step backwards on your own technology like that?
    2. DVD DL Burner - Yup, you read right - no dual layer burning. No mention anywhere, especially in the tech specs, which DOES list dual layer reading speeds. Again, why?
    3. S-Video out - Powerbooks had it, MacBooks don't. Apple sells a DVI to S-Video adapter, but doesn't say if it's compatible (which is troublesome since the mini-DVI has been updated for the iMac Intel).

    I can't fathom why they'd introduce a new generation of hardware like this and drop back on features that are almost a no-op to keep.
  • by fredmosby (545378) on Tuesday January 10, 2006 @06:25PM (#14440725)
    I noticed in the that the MacBook Pro has a lithium-polymer battery instead of a lithium-ion battery like the [apple.com] PowerBook G4 [apple.com]. The battery in the new laptop is 60 watt-hour vs. 50 watt-hour for the old laptop. Can anyone tell me why apple would choose a lithium-polymer batteries over lithium-ion.

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...