# Macbook specs...leaked...



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

from: http://www.ipodhub.net/articles/20060505macbooks_specs_leaked.html

MacBook specs leaked?
Friday 5 May 2006 by iJulian

According to one source who goes by the name of 'The Khalif' (from California) Apple's consumer MacBook will be in the hands of customers by the end of the month...and they look like this.

The MacBooks due to be announced this coming Tuesday will, according to The Khalif, come in two colors, either black or white with grey palmrests to match the look of their iPod line, and a 13.3 inch screen. According to this rumor Apple will get rid of 12 and 14 inch models and trim their consumer notebook line because "Front Row looks better on a widescreen."

The MacBook's specs read almost identically to those of the Mac mini including onboard Intel graphics and will have a strong emphasis on battery life. The Khalif's specs read like this:

* 13.3 inch TFT widescreen
* Intel Core Solo Processor T1300 1.66 GHz or Intel Core Duo Processor T2300 1.66 GHz
* Intel GMA950 integrated graphics
* 512MD DDR SDRAM as standard
* 80GB hard disc as standard
* Slot-Load SuperDrive DVD±RW/CD-RW
* FireWire 400
* 2 X USB 2.0
* mini DVI/VGA
* Gigabit Ethernet
* AirPort Extreme
* Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, Infrared
* Built-in iSight
* Front Row with Apple Remote

All the usuals will be included with the machine (iLife '06, etc). It's comforting to see the inclusion of Front Row across the whole of Apple's new product line considering Steve Jobs' recent remark that Apple has heard public calls for an Apple media center.

Also to be noted is new support for DVI and abscence of a modem. As with MacBook Pro and Mac mini Apple wants everyone to enter a high speed digital world. The best way to make that happen is if computer manufacturers stopped supporting slow interfaces.

The Khalif says he has no idea what the prices will be like but one presumes there will be an increase over current iBook models considering the all-round improvements. The new MacBook looks to be an essential addition to digital lifestyle hubs.

UPDATE: Correction, our Californian spy said the MacBook would have Gigabit Ethernet not 10/100BASE-T. Also an error on Apple's iPod page today made mention of the MacBook. Apple has now restored the page but this is what it looked like...


The Khalif also mentions as an aside that the 13.3 inch MacBook Pro is also on schedule featuring 1.83Ghz Core Duo processors, and that Apple has toyed with the idea of a 2.33Ghz upgrade option for their high end MacBook Pro models but is holding off for Intel's Merom chip due for release this summer. On a performance per watt basis, Intel claims Merom will outperform Yonah by 20%, while maintaining the same battery-life as Yonah. ®


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> come in two colors, either black or white with grey palmrests


so that means they're keeping the plastic shell?


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

I thought it was gonna look more like the MBP


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

i will wait until they are release befor passing final judgement, but these grey palm pads dont seem to fit into the apple design that i have come use to.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

overkill said:


> i will wait until they are release befor passing final judgement, but these grey palm pads dont seem to fit into the apple design that i have come use to.



ipods....


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

Aero said:


> ipods....


sorry, i should have added design of their laptops and desktop machines


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

i'm liking the superdrive as standard


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

jonmon said:


> i'm liking the superdrive as standard


Combo for the solo core version.
Superdrive for the duo core version.

Sounds logical. Apple better ramp up production of the USB modems


----------



## nutsngum (Jul 20, 2005)

woo! This is going to be my first Mac and I'm pretty pumped! Is it better to purchase online or go to an apple store to purchase a laptop there?


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

integrated graphics card though, ick.
not liking that. guess i'll be waiting for the 13.3" macbook pro instead.

from MacFixit:

Intel Mac mini's integrated graphics chipset obviates Final Cut Studio support
Thanks to its integrated graphics (Intel GMA950) chipset, the Intel-based Mac mini is not able to run the newly released Universal Binary edition of the Final Cut Studio suite.

According to Apple Knowledge Base article #303470:

"If you have a Mac Mini (Early 2006), the Final Cut Studio (Universal) crossgrade Installer does not prohibit you from installing the pro applications, but this configuration does not meet the minimum system requirements for Final Cut Studio."

The system requirements for the Final Cut Studio suite indicate that an AGP Quartz Extreme or PCI Express graphics card is required.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I don't buy these specs at all. I bet they overreach on several counts and the price will not be materially different from the current models.


----------



## vapour (Feb 18, 2003)

Judging by the influx of Apple laptops for sale on the trading board I would say the launch date for the MacBook is at hand


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Integrated Video makes sense. Apple doesn't want Pros buying MacBooks. Apple wants them buying MacBook Pros.

A MacBook makes sense for your typical home user / college student.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

thatcomputerguy said:


> integrated graphics card though, ick.
> not liking that. guess i'll be waiting for the 13.3" macbook pro instead.


Does anyone think they will actually make a 13.3" MacBook Pro?

It would make sense to me that they would keep the MacBook at 13.3" as the consumer laptop. Two versions of it for basic use and more advanced users.

And then leave the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro as the pro options.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

These Intel graphics are becomming a problem.

Almost everyone who has asked me about Bootcamp was only interested it in for the sake of games... the Intel graphics are going to be a deal breaker for those users.

Someone wanted to know how well Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas would run on the new mini. I had to tell him basically not at all, it is unplayable, and very few games would play on it at all.

He returned it to the store and decided to just keep his old Mini.

The Radeon x600 and GeForce 6200 are DIRT CHEAP, both chips can be had for under $20 and would make the new mini a much better machine. 

Intel graphics are the very worst element, and leading cause of disappointment of the PC universe, it is unfortunate to see Apple embrace them. 

The biggest complaint of many PC buyers is they buy a new PC, and buy the latest game only to discover that it is unplayable on their brand new machine because of the Intel graphics. 

"Intel Media Accelerator" is not accociated with quality.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Fer criminy sakes

The most demanding professional software Apple makes doesn't run on their least expensive consumer machine. _Quel suprise!_

Apples $700 entry level machine doesn't run games as fast as machines with dedicated $100 - $800 videocards. _Quel suprise!_

A $20 chip at the manufacturing level, plus the motherboard changes, moreso if you expect them to make a MiniPCI slot for it, translate to about a $100 rise in the retail price. Can you see how a 10 - 15% increase in might not be doable in an entry level machine? 

Embedded.shared VRAM is the standard in the affordable range. Nobody expects a PC under $800 to come with a dedicated video subsystem. Why would you expect a Mac to? Not to mention that intel is not going to adopt nForce or ATI motherboard chipsets just for Apple...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

U game u get iMac 17" Intel :clap: Just incredible.

BTW we will take G4 minis in trade on Intel iMacs - just be realistic.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

No one puts video on Mini PCI slots... and no one is demanding a upgradable AGP slot or a Radeon X1900. Just a real video chip that can handle reasonably modern applications and doesn't hurt the performance of the machine.

The dirty secret of the Intel Graphics is not only that they waste system memory, but they also waste processing power because actions done in hardware on most video chips is offloaded to the CPU by intel graphics.

On a logic level adding a real video controller is not a big deal at all, if the chipset supports it, which the i945 does. The logic is already there. If they were using something like an i865GV chipset you would have a valid point in which there would be a significant cost associated with both the logic and physical graphics chip required. But that isn't the case here.

In addition, around the $600 price point, many PC's do have non-intel graphics, such as an ATI x300 or GeForce 6100. (yes... some don't and I am sure you can find all of them)

Apple could also have went for a non-Intel intergrated solution, like the ATI x200 - which is actually a less expensive chipset than the i945.

Apple has used non-intergrated graphics of a reasonable quality for years, to transition to the worst graphics solution on the market is not being well received. 

Infact this was something Apple openly advertised until jumping into the Intel Graphics gutter themselves, many are disappointed about this, if you aren't that is fine, but don't belittle the concerns of those who are upset about a radical departure on the part of Apple.


----------



## TimStalin (May 22, 2005)

overkill said:


> these grey palm pads dont seem to fit into the apple design that i have come use to


I haven't seen this mentioned previously in the thread so ...

The iBooks currently have grey palm rests (interiors), so what's the problem?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't think it's a big issue in the MacMini category but it's a disappointment on the iBook Intel end unless the prices are well down.

$999 Cdn CoreSingle and $1499 CoreDuo might make it acceptable.

leaves room for an $1800 hopped up 13.3 with game level graphics. - there has been talk of this.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

CanadaRAM said:


> Fer criminy sakes... Nobody expects a PC under $800 to come with a dedicated video subsystem. Why would you expect a Mac to?


Well, because they did until a few weeks ago, for well under $800!


----------



## TimStalin (May 22, 2005)

Trevor... said:


> Apple has used non-intergrated graphics of a reasonable quality for years, to transition to the worst graphics solution on the market is not being well received.


Apple made one small mistake in my eyes: they upgraded all of their Macs to 512 RAM before the Intel transition. So now that they are using the integrated video there is a overall loss of total system RAM available.

Now, the 512 RAM is definitely needed to run OS X reasonably, but if Apple could have stayed at 256, then introduced the i945 and upgraded to 512 at the same time it would have been bonuses all around. The system would have around 176 more RAM and an upgraded video chip set. Unfortunately now it looks like one step forward and one step back.

Personally I don't have a problem with the i945. I'll just be dropping in extra RAM anyway so giving up 80 out of 1536 MB doesn't seem like too big of a deal. After all, the chip set itself is an upgrade over what is currently being used, and allows for an overall smaller laptop.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The creepy thing is Apple using 2x256 on the MacMini instead of a single 512 ala the MPB and iMac Intel.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

As far as i've heard, iMacs and MacBook Pros both have the Intel GMA 950 chipset on them, it's just disabled in favour of the the ATI RM x1600, plus it's expected that the average consumer will not go any further than probably Logic Express, nor are they demanding gamers -- they probably already have one of the big three consoles already if they do want to play games. So as CanadaRAM says, to the average consumer it's probably not worth paying an extra $100 for a better video card on such a low priced laptop.

BTW it's ATI m200, not x200 

And yes iBooks do currently have grey palmrests, not that grey, it's very light, I never noticed it was grey until months and months later.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

I welcome the new MacBook. Although the integrated graphics are a letdown, I think with the (finally) decent HDD and the widescreen + frontrow, it'll be the perfect machine for many users. 

Games on any computer are overrated. Like CanadaRAM says, "quel surprise" that the cheaper machines don't do as much as the more expensive ones...

every house sould have an iMac anyways. It makes the best all-round computer, ever.


----------



## nutsngum (Jul 20, 2005)

You wanna play games go get an xbox 360


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> The creepy thing is Apple using 2x256 on the MacMini instead of a single 512 ala the MPB and iMac Intel.


Intel chipsets can't do multi-channel on a single stick of memory,


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

okcomputer said:


> Does anyone think they will actually make a 13.3" MacBook Pro?
> 
> It would make sense to me that they would keep the MacBook at 13.3" as the consumer laptop. Two versions of it for basic use and more advanced users.
> 
> And then leave the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro as the pro options.


they have/had a 12" ibook and 12" powerbook - so why not 13.3" macbook and 13.3" macbook pro?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Multichannel - who cares - it's of marginal value in a low end machine and if it's good enough for an iMac and MPB it's good enough for a MacMini.
Just Apple being cheap. 

I do think we will see a 13.3 hopped up version but not likely a MBP moniker on it.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

dona83 said:


> BTW it's ATI m200, not x200


No, it is the x200, the mobile version is the Radeon Mobility Xpress 200. 

And if it would cost $100 Apple has the worst PCB logic team in the world. 

It isn't a matter of "demanding gamers" it is a matter of "completely unusable" the only major game I found "playable" on the Intel graphics is Return to Castle Wolfenstein" which is five years old and I played on a Radeon 7000.


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Multichannel - who cares - it's of marginal value in a low end machine and if it's good enough for an iMac and MPB it's good enough for a MacMini.
> Just Apple being cheap.
> 
> I do think we will see a 13.3 hopped up version but not likely a MBP moniker on it.


Really? I have to disagree. Apple is not about to offer an integrated video macbook and a dedicated video macbook - just doesn't make sense. it's not an easy change, unlike adding ram or increasing the hard drive size. That's what makes me think that if this rumour is true, then the macbooks with be integrated video and the macbook pros will be dedicated. i just hope they make a slightly smaller version. the 15.4" model is just a little big for my liking. oh well, wait and see...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I think it'll be an iMacBook Pro...But what do I know.

D


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suspect Apple may wait for the upcoming Merom for the intermediate unit and keep the 13.3 form factor.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

thatcomputerguy said:


> they have/had a 12" ibook and 12" powerbook - so why not 13.3" macbook and 13.3" macbook pro?


I dunno.. It just seems like the MacBooks and the MacBook Pros won't be as different as far as hardware is concerned... Maybe there IS enough difference there to make a MacBook Pro 13.3"... time will tell!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh the iMac Intel/MBP architecture blows the doors off the MacMIni/iBook Intel. Don't kid yourself.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> I don't think it's a big issue in the MacMini category but it's a disappointment on the iBook Intel end unless the prices are well down.
> 
> $999 Cdn CoreSingle and $1499 CoreDuo might make it acceptable.
> 
> leaves room for an $1800 hopped up 13.3 with game level graphics. - there has been talk of this.


x/xp consultant's delight


----------



## nutsngum (Jul 20, 2005)

Does iLife come included in the base price of the system?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes


----------



## 9mmCensor (Jan 27, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Multichannel - who cares - it's of marginal value in a low end machine and if it's good enough for an iMac and MPB it's good enough for a MacMini.
> Just Apple being cheap.
> 
> I do think we will see a 13.3 hopped up version but not likely a MBP moniker on it.


at least in the pc world multichannel gives intel chips big preformance boosts


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

9mmCensor said:


> at least in the pc world multichannel gives intel chips big preformance boosts


You're buying into the Intel hype. It did give some Intel systems a performance boost, but hardly a big one; on AMD systems it made no difference. On Intel's core dup chipset, using DDR2 667 RAM, it gives nothing because the memory is fast already.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

The PC Gaming industry is dying, plain and simple. You can look at software sales over the last 2-3 Xmas periods (biggest sales period) and see that in each year, sales have been dropping year after year. 

A company must develop their products to appeal to the largest possible market. A few years ago, with hardware prices being in the $3-4k range, you couldn't afford a computer and a games machine. Now with games machines (i.e. xBox 360, etc.) having internet access for multi-player capabilities and more families needed 2 or more computers just for computer use, it doesn't make sense to play games on a computer anymore. Therefore for a manufacturer it doesn't make sense to build a consumer machine with high end graphics capabilities. 

The professional photographer/video editor needs higher end graphics. That is what the professional machine is for and Apple has product to suit their needs. The consumer machines (iBook and Mini) are for your average user who wants to send email, surf the web, do a report (either student or business user), etc. 

I'm not suggesting that you can't or shouldn't play games on a computer. There are still great games available. But please stop the whining that the bargain basement entry level machine doesn't have all of the kick-ass features of the top-of-the-line machine. You want those features? Cough up the bucks and pay for them!


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Oakbridge said:


> But please stop the whining that the bargain basement entry level machine doesn't have all of the kick-ass features of the top-of-the-line machine. You want those features? Cough up the bucks and pay for them!


yikes - who peed in your cornflakes?!?!

My point is simple - i think they should use a dedicated video card in the new ibook/macbook. why do we have to take a step backwards and get integrated video when the current models have dedicated video and we are supposedly moving forward?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

thatcomputerguy said:


> yikes - who peed in your cornflakes?!?!
> 
> My point is simple - i think they should use a dedicated video card in the new ibook/macbook. why do we have to take a step backwards and get integrated video when the current models have dedicated video and we are supposedly moving forward?


to keep macbook costs down
entry level laptops don't need dedicated video if you are a road warrior using mail and surfing
perhaps word, excel or maybe a database

if you want/need a dedicated video card, get a macbook pro

i applaud jobs's logic in using one motherboard for imac/mbp and one for mini/mb

brilliant - keeps development costs down

basically 2 mother boards and a reasonable range of products and prices

i would love to see the intel macbook entry level machine in under $1000


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> to keep macbook costs down
> entry level laptops don't need dedicated video if you are a road warrior using mail and surfing
> perhaps word, excel or maybe a database
> 
> ...


so, by your reasoning, the ibook owner of today has to buy a macbook pro to get a video card as good as they already have. otherwise they get the lousy integrated card with their nice new macbook? 
As it stands now, my ibook can handle most apps, including the "pro" ones albeit a little slow. but with the new macbooks you can't even run them slowly, they just don't run. how is that progress?
The "keeping the price down" argument doesn't wash with me. keeping the price the same and having dedicated video is definitely better than dropping the price a little and getting an entry level video card.

This may all be moot anyway - nobody is certain about the specs until they are released. i for one just hope the leaked info is wrong. i've been using ibooks for 3 generations and love them, and while the MBP is nice, i don't want a 15.4" screen on my lap, that is why i was hoping for a decent macbook 13.3".


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

Also, the ibook of today has the same specs as the previous version of the powerbook. Those powerbooks were and are fine for running pro apps, just not the most up to date versions, with the new change to integrated video, that will no longer hold true.

As it is, I can run FCP on my ibook right now and it will work just fine. Unfortunately i will not be able to on a new macbook. that sucks.

tirade/rant over.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it is a good bet that apple will release a higher end macbook w/ a dedicated video card, but don't look for it at $1000

if $1000 and $1400 are reasonable price points for single and duo core entry levels and macbook pro starts at $2400
that leaves a nice gap for another offering at about $1800 or so

i think it makes sense that apple will offer the macbook in 13.3" only and pro models will be 15 and 17


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

TCG - putting a decent video card on top of a weak processor ( the G4 ) was the only way Apple could at least provide some sort of speed bump. C'mon a $2000 difference between a G4 1.33 iBook versus a 1.67 G4 17" Powerbook.
The whole G4 processor line was "past due" date.,.......about 2 years ago - Apple simply had no choice but to try and squeeze some extra life via video performance.

Now the emphasis once more is on the processing in the lower end and the MacMini single is just fine for most basis tasks so using the video performance to "enhance" a no longer weak processor is not needed nor affordable given all the other benefts in the uni architecture, iSight, RAM speed etc.

I still maintain a gaming unit will in the middle between MBP and MacBook but a ways out for release. I just hope the price of the new unit is in the $1000 range Canadian for the entry level.

••

BTW the Pro apps weren't fine.....they were tolerable because there was no choice.
NOW an MBP and a G5 dual are on par Final Cut and Logic so you can do truly Pro work at speed from a portable.
The 3-4x faster is real ...and that was the goal.


----------



## nutsngum (Jul 20, 2005)

What applications exactly are we talking about that won't run on the Macbook if the integrated graphics card is used?

Also, how exactly does it work, instead of having seperate memory available for graphics does it use system memory? So it would be wise to upgrade from the 512mb ram.


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

wow.

After reading the whole thread, I can't wait til this week. I'm due for a new lap, and was going to get a MBP, but would not mind taking a good look @ this MB.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

nutsngum said:


> What applications exactly are we talking about that won't run on the Macbook if the integrated graphics card is used?
> 
> Also, how exactly does it work, instead of having seperate memory available for graphics does it use system memory? So it would be wise to upgrade from the 512mb ram.


FCP doesn't run on the curent Intel mini b/c Apple has deemed it out of spec (see earlier in this thread).

Another thing worth pointing out is that the incorporation of integrated graphics in the Mini did not have any obvious effect of decreasing costs. Prices rose for the Intel Mini.


----------



## nutsngum (Jul 20, 2005)

Is FCP the only program it won't really run?


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

mycatsnameis said:


> FCP doesn't run on the curent Intel mini b/c Apple has deemed it out of spec (see earlier in this thread).
> 
> Another thing worth pointing out is that the incorporation of integrated graphics in the Mini did not have any obvious effect of decreasing costs. Prices rose for the Intel Mini.


Price rose because the base specifications rose. You pay more to get more.

For the extra $100, you get a faster processor, faster bus, twice as much memory, a bigger hard drive, built in wireless networking and bluetooth, and Front Row with Remote. Thats quite a lot of stuff for $100. Seems the price actually went DOWN considering what you're now getting standard.

Trev


----------



## thatcomputerguy (Jan 13, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> TCG - putting a decent video card on top of a weak processor ( the G4 ) was the only way Apple could at least provide some sort of speed bump. C'mon a $2000 difference between a G4 1.33 iBook versus a 1.67 G4 17" Powerbook.
> The whole G4 processor line was "past due" date.,.......about 2 years ago - Apple simply had no choice but to try and squeeze some extra life via video performance.
> 
> Now the emphasis once more is on the processing in the lower end and the MacMini single is just fine for most basis tasks so using the video performance to "enhance" a no longer weak processor is not needed nor affordable given all the other benefts in the uni architecture, iSight, RAM speed etc.
> ...


you can't really compare the 17" MBP to a 13.3" MB. the biggest reason for the price difference is the size. if you compare the 12" powerbook to the 12" ibook you can see there were minimal differences - the ibook was not a castrated pbook. i was just hoping the new macbook would be a decent alternative to the MBP. what's wrong with supplying a video card with less memory instead of removing it and sharing the ram? that's what we had before.

As far as the usability of the powerapps - my little ibook g4 can edit in FCP quite well and in fact a buddy of mine uses his 15" pbook g4 that has the exact same specs, to edit using FCP for TV. They work - as long as you max out the ram. in the new scheme that won't be an option.


----------

