Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Geekbench Confirms Ivy Bridge MacBook Pro and iMac

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the brand-spanking-new dept.

Apple 133

An anonymous reader writes "It was inevitable that Intel launching the 22nm Ivy Bridge processors would lead to Apple using them in its laptops and desktop machines. While Apple never leaks details early, someone using pre-release hardware has managed to upload details of the new machine to Geekbench's database. We can definitely expect a Core i7 Ivy Bridge MacBook Pro and iMac later this year."

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No ethernet... (3, Insightful)

fewnorms (630720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996393)

Which is a major downside to all of this news for us in companies.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996455)

Uh, where did you see this?

Re:No ethernet... (1)

fewnorms (630720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997505)

Right here [9to5mac.com] , if the rumors are true of course. I don't really doubt it, it seems to be in line with Apple's way of thinking these days.
Then again, for now these are indeed all rumors. Here's hoping they do actually include a port.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

TheEldest (913804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999581)

I'm sure they're thinking is Thunderbolt docks. Full speed for all devices including displays. (not that I agree, just saying it's not a huge headache)

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40001273)

I want a 10Gb Thunderbolt NIC

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996483)

Following the path of the MacBook Air... as long it has USB you can spend yet more money to get a dongle, oh joy...

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996567)

Given all of the places I work, the few times I need a physical cable, I'll deal with carrying a dongle for the few times I need to plug in a wire. Same goes for the CD/DVD these days. The few times I really need a CD drive, I'll just carry an external one. Hell for all of the CD drives that have failed me over the years, I'll gladly externalize it to save the weight of a device that will be dead weight when it breaks.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997215)

Ah it's allready starting

"B-b-b-but...THATS A FEATURE!"

Re:No ethernet... (1, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997595)

Isn't it sad? Ethernet isn't like floppies, which were slow, error prone, and already on the way out when Apple pulled the plug. Gigabit Ethernet is currently faster than any wireless than I know of yet if Apple says "You don't need that" we get dozens of posts saying "They must be right! Apple is genius!".

So I gotta give Jobs credit, he built an RDF so damned powerful it even survived his death. that is pretty damned impressive. And to all the Appleites out there...why would you give up Gigabit Ethernet for less than a 16th of an inch? Look at the pictures, that's it. A 16th of an inch savings costs you a useful feature. Why would you say such a tiny savings would be worth losing Gigabit?

Re:No ethernet... (1)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998905)

Your comment made me think of the last time I used wired ethernet on my MacBook. It has been at least a month. Before that, probably six months. I'd like to have it, sure. But will I miss it? Probably not so much. I'll enjoy USB 3.0 (if that surprising rumor is true) much more than I'll miss Gig-E.

Not giving up anything, and the gain is larger (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998917)

Gigabit Ethernet is currently faster than any wireless than I know of yet if Apple says "You don't need that" we get dozens of posts saying "They must be right! Apple is genius!"

Apple is not saying "you don't need it". They are saying "most people do not need it, and those that do can still use it".

I have GigE on my current Powerbook. I use it perhaps six times a year. Obviously if they git rid or the port I would not care much, and I am a highly technical user - most users would simply never miss it.

For the very few times I would like GigE I'd either use Thunderbolt or USB adaptors. What is so bad about that, to remove the cost and weight of a component that a huge percentage of your users will not want or need day to day?

why would you give up Gigabit Ethernet for less than a 16th of an inch?

Why would you NOT. It's not like you are gaining only a 16th of an inch. The rumors are that the new Powerbooks across the line get the Air treatment, which means about half the current thickness. That is a HUGE savings in space and weight, especially if you travel or walk with your laptop much and have the 17" model. Removing an ethernet port is just one part of an across the board reduction.

And again, it's not GIVING UP anything. It's just removing it from the base configuration.

Re:Not giving up anything, and the gain is larger (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001657)

I'm hoping they keep gig-e on the pro machines, but realistically most of the time it is ever used is when you're at your desk. i.e., plugged into your thunderbolt display, which has gig-e. Why carry the port around all the time when you're away from your desk.

At least no doubt that is the theory, if it disappears.

Re:Not giving up anything, and the gain is larger (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002227)

To me I'm fine with something like a GigE port going away, as long as I know an adaptor can provide the same speed.

I think that's the missing part of the equation, most people are thinking of USB network adaptors which could not deliver full GIgE speeds. But with Thunderbolt GIgE stuff, that's not an issue at all, and why I'm not concerned if I need to use an adaptor.

I have also read that USB 3.0 will be there in the new models, which it yet another high speed bus option.

Re:Not giving up anything, and the gain is larger (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002979)

I agree to an extent. But for me, gigabit ethernet is something I (as a minority) really do want, without needing a dongle (irrespective of whether it is thunderbolt or USB3, it is still another thing to get lost/forgotten/etc).

But, as you say, thunderbolt opens up all sorts of possibilities - fibre channel, 10gig-e, etc. And I'd certainy understand the reasoning, if they were to drop as an internal connector.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000749)

I don't usually agree with you. This one I do. Losing physical ethernet is a series downgrade. Being able to plug in physically is a huge advantage when things go wrong or when you want to deal with network hardware. I'm sure there will be some sort of attachment I have to buy and yeah this is going to cost me.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997517)

Hehehe.
You said dongle.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996515)

What kind of shitty company do you work at that doesn't have WiFi?

Re:No ethernet... (3, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996551)

Yes, because the replacement for gigabit ethernet is vastly slower WiFi. You're kidding, right?

Re:No ethernet... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996709)

How often do you really need gigabit?

I use a macbook air at work and it seems fine. I do any heavy lifting on servers anyway, no laptop is going to compete with 4 Xeons anyway.

Re:No ethernet... (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996889)

Remote X11 to servers you don't control is still waaaay faster on a wire.

So are backups. And if you use the folder/drive sharing feature of RDC, this is way more usable using a wire.

Plus, wireless degrades less gracefully with multiple users and I find the wire to be more reliable in general.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998829)

Remote X11 sucks ass on any medium. VNC is only a tiny bit better, but you can disconnect from a running session. Give XRDP a spin sometime. X11 needs to die, it's served its purpose.

Back to the topic at hand, if a wifi connection is not sufficient for your remote admin tools, and you need 1Gb, think about the overhead you are creating on your _server's_ connection. I assume your problem is with wifi throughput, because the latency should be reasonable.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999067)

Remote X11 sucks ass on any medium. VNC is only a tiny bit better, but you can disconnect from a running session. Give XRDP a spin sometime. X11 needs to die, it's served its purpose.

Agreed but I don't have admin over these servers and some of the tools are painful to use without X11.

Back to the topic at hand, if a wifi connection is not sufficient for your remote admin tools, and you need 1Gb, think about the overhead you are creating on your _server's_ connection.

These are development servers and all of the bandwidth is being used for X11 sessions... not much else they have to do except serve some internal low-traffic web pages. A momentary spike in traffic won't hurt anyone.

I assume your problem is with wifi throughput, because the latency should be reasonable.

You are correct, but I'm not trying to stream video over X11 or anything - just open windows full of toolbars and stuff. Most of the bandwidth comes in a burst when you first create a new window. Over WiFi you can watch it draw, and on gigabit it is almost instantaneous. Sure, I'm sucking up a bunch of bandwidth for a fraction of a second every once in a while, but most of the time it's only sending text updates as I type or get feedback on the terminal.

One trick I sometimes use is to plug my laptop in to the gigabit, fire up the windows I know I'll need, and then unplug and work from WiFi. :)

Re:No ethernet... (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996967)

I need gigabit daily... My Aperture vaults are on an iSCSI share, and a great deal of my files are on Samba shares.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997763)

Most people don't need this, -n is faster than 100, and most people can't afford a gigabit switch. If you can, then you can also afford a $25 to $50 adapter.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997865)

Most people don't need this, -n is faster than 100, and most people can't afford a gigabit switch. If you can, then you can also afford a $25 to $50 adapter.

N is not faster than 100 in any real-world use, and gigabit switches cost $20 at Newegg. If it moves, use wireless. If it doesn't move, use gigabit ethernet.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998183)

"-n is faster than 100, and most people can't afford a gigabit switch."

Had to make sure I didn't accidentally click one of the links from 2006 when I read this comment.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999255)

Even the final 802.11n in the best case is not that much faster than 100BASE-T, and that requires having no more than a couple of devices on the network, all close to the base station. By its nature, wireless communication is a shared medium, not switched, so as soon as you have two devices, they're competing for bandwidth; MIMO will eventually help with this to some degree, but even that only goes so far. It doesn't take very many devices on a wireless network before the average per-device bandwidth is less than switched 10BASE-T would provide, much less switched 100BASE-T or gigabit.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998543)

And yet you don't have a thunderbolt display. Dude, what the fuck?

Re:No ethernet... (1)

supercrisp (936036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997067)

I use ethernet daily at home to back up my computer and to move video files, and I use it for all network needs at campus, where the wifi network is overburdened by increasing enrollments and omnipresent smartphones.

Re:No ethernet... (3, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997117)

How often do you really need gigabit?

I frequently pull a gigabyte of data over the network to my laptop to open a scene. In my case, it wouldn't be a 'pro' laptop without an ethernet port.

YMMV.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999815)

Exactly- Are they going to stop calling this the "Pro"

The average person doesn't need things like gigabit or even a disc drive anymore (can't remember the last time I used a disc at home and other than my desktop and htpc which don't have wireless, the last time I plugged my laptop into the network was a long time ago and I only did it to save a couple minutes on a big transfer). But the business user (or professonal) has other requirements that they don't set.

At work, we run ethernet only--no non-physical connections to the network and only ports that are expected to be in use are activated. We get DVDs from clients who refuse or are unwilling to provide data on an HDD or send electronically. Maybe you are a photographer whose client wants a CD burned with the images. Maybe the business hotel you are staying at only offers suitable ethernet and no wifi.

Its an important feature and seems dumb to remove. They already have the normal macbook and the macbook air...lets keep a power-model for the power-users. Also, if they are worried about the width of the port, why not switch to one of those ports where you push on them and they pop out a little tab where you insert the ethernet cable from the top like all of the old non-dongle PCMCIA ethernet cards and modems.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999937)

I believed they killed the normal Macbook a while ago. It's now air or pro.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000775)

If you have a stationary machine they still sell the macpro. This is about the laptops.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997147)

What the fuck are you talking about? Blah blah blah macbook air blah blah blah 4 Xeons blah blah blah... Gigabit helps with even the most basic file transfer among many many many other reason that I am not even going to bother explaining to you.

Re:No ethernet... (3, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997263)

How often do you really need gigabit?

Almost anyone working in media production will likely answer "Every day".

WiFi isn't a solution when users are transferring 300GB+ at a time over the network.

Re:No ethernet... (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997877)

Uhhh...I hate to break the news to ya friend but when Apple turned FCP into iMovie pro it was pretty obvious, at least to me, they are trying to ditch their "pro" users.

If you think about it it makes sense....where does Apple get the highest margins? Where do they get the most profits? That would be consumer devices like the iPad and iPhone. With those devices they own everything from the chip up so when and how updates to the line are carried out is controlled by Apple. that is not the case in X86 because if Apple left Intel for AMD tomorrow it wouldn't even rate a blip on Intel's radar as they are simply too massive. Look at Intel slitting Nvidia's throat in the chipset market which hurt Apple because they used more powerful Nvidia chipsets with Intel CPUs. Can't do that now and Intel frankly didn't care whether that move affected Apple or not because again Apple is small potatoes in X86.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Apple releases one or two more X86 models before Cook holds a press conference and declares the iPad the "new mac" and that will be the end of that. They may keep the bottom of the line Macbook and iMac because they can keep the upgrade schedule positively anemic and not really hurt sales in that sector. Home users frankly aren't even using half the power of current multicores so whether a chip is 2 years old or not won't really matter to that market.

But that isn't the pro market, just the opposite. the pros NEED the fastest chips because they are creating and editing HD content and that kind of work stresses the hell out of a system. That is why i think they are dropping features and programs that pros use as it costs too much time and effort for too small a niche.

Anyway if the rumors are true and they toss Ethernet we will know that is the direction they are going as USB and WiFi is just too damned slow for high def content creation.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000791)

Apple controls 90% of the over $1000 laptop market. It is core to their brand identity. It is a huge source of products. Further their entire development platform is dependent on OSX. Yes they make a lot more money on phones. They actually make very little on tablets and don't really have a good strategy for higher tablets.

So no, this is not going to happen.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998127)

Are you moving 300GB on a Macbook Air that often?

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000477)

I was referring to new Macbook Pros w/o Ethernet.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996721)

For what possible reason would a company require gigabit ethernet in every single laptop deployed to every single user? Do you imagine that a gigabit ethernet is necessary for the sales drone that spends 200 nights a year in a hotel room? Do you imagine that gigabit ethernet is necessary for a project manager?

The question was not "do apple laptops have all the features that Lunix Nutcase imagines that he needs in the computer that he lugs around between the bedroom in his mom's basement and his part time job at mcdonalds". The question was why wouldn't WiFi be sufficient for the majority of use cases in a company?

What, exactly, do you think companies use computers for, anyhow?

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996809)

Why would you buy a cost-premium mac that has less features than an el-cheapo PC?

Re:No ethernet... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996909)

Example?

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998207)

Farfetched and clearly no one is thinking about this, but maybe a cost-premium Mac with no ethernet versus an el-cheapo PC with ethernet. I know, it's crazy.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998637)

Which model Mac and which model PC? I don't think you've actually done the comparison because when I've compared with similar Dell and HP notebooks in the past, the numbers are always plus or minus (yes, minus) 10%.

So I'd like an example.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997259)

100Mbits ethernet is cheaper (switches and maybe long distance cables), and still vastly superior to wifi.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997357)

Seriously? Ethernet is cheaper than wifi?

Re:No ethernet... (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997977)

Yes.

Commercial grade Access Points are similarly priced for Same-capacity wired switches (don't forget wireless has a wired backbone)

Re:No ethernet... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999183)

What, exactly, do you think companies use computers for, anyhow?

I've never run into an IT setup of any size that didn't consider "install approved image" as step 1 of deploying a new system, or redeploying one previously used elsewhere. The tools for doing this over ethernet (PXE/Netboot, dump image to disk, reboot) are commonly available and mature. Over wifi? Not so much. Over USB ethernet dongles? Surely you jest.

Doesn't matter much for home users, or very small scale outfits where the slower 'boot from external volume, fire up disk utility, copy disk image to internal volume' method is acceptable; but Apple had better have a plan B for everybody who wants to image machines in bulk if they fancy institutional sales...

Re:No ethernet... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001479)

These are Macs. OSX will come with drivers for the one or two ethernet dongles for Thunderbolt in firmware like they do for onboard controllers now.

Mac Netboot will still happen the exact same way, hold down the N or ALT key a boot!

Remove dongle when done if the user doesn't need it. Next.

Re:No ethernet... (5, Insightful)

Chuck Milam (1998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996585)

The kind that does not allow WiFi for security reasons.

Re:No ethernet... (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996791)

Latency can be a huge issue. Sure, we got wifi. No we don't trust sensitive data over the air, so you gotta use the wifi, out to the internet, into the VPN concentrator... the corporate VPN concentrator... on the other side of the country... So to VNC into a local server you get millisecond latency connections over wired, or hundred ms (sometimes more) latency over the wifi. Yuck.

Re:No ethernet... (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996607)

What kind of shitty company do you work at that doesn't have WiFi?

Well, the wifi where I work now is over-saturated and doesn't work so well. But that's immaterial because my company doesn't let you hit our network from the wifi, you can only go out to the internet on t.

Oh, and lots of places don't actually have wifi, it has nothing to do with the shittiness of the company.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997099)

What kind of shitty company do you work at that doesn't have WiFi?

Well, the wifi where I work now is over-saturated and doesn't work so well. But that's immaterial because my company doesn't let you hit our network from the wifi, you can only go out to the internet on t.

Ditto, plus we don't allow outgoing mail over wifi.

Re:No ethernet... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996617)

If there is heavy bandwidth use, wifi is a nightmare. Remember its half the speed of 100 mbit, and its shared. Then if you are in an office building the wifi is crap by itself since every's wifi on your floor plus 7 above and below interferes with your wifi (yes there are several channels but you should be able to see how easily all channels get occupied).

My last job had both, I'd regularly have to go plug in so I didn't have to wait forever for some large files to transfer.

Re:No ethernet... (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997633)

If there is heavy bandwidth use, wifi is a nightmare. Remember its half the speed of 100 mbit, and its shared. Then if you are in an office building the wifi is crap by itself since every's wifi on your floor plus 7 above and below interferes with your wifi (yes there are several channels but you should be able to see how easily all channels get occupied).

As I'm getting older, I can't see this as a "nightmare". A "nightmare" is when I have to run around and fix the problem. This is the exact opposite - I can sit down and relax until the file transfer has finished. Not my fault if it takes a while :-)

Re:No ethernet... (1)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997945)

The kind that invested in a wired gigabit infrastructure, no doubt.

But the real question is: "What kind of shitty company do you work at that uses Macs?" ;^)

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998351)

The kind that invested in a wired gigabit infrastructure, no doubt.

And that's just the WAN - wake me up when local wireless speeds best 10GigE.

Re:No ethernet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40001779)

I travel all over the world for my job. Few hotels have stable (and certainly not secure) WiFi connections in room. Many still provide internet via Ethernet.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996555)

just put it on usb.. that's how apple rolls anyways.

Re:No ethernet... (4, Informative)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996579)

Or Thunderbolt. Apple even has a TB monitor with an embedded ethernet port, as well as a power supply for the laptop.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997013)

I looked at that one... you can't hook up more than one computer and you can't hook up anything that's not thunderbolt. If you're going to spend $1000 on a monitor, get the Dell which has more screen space (area and pixels), and allows hooking up 5 computers and switching between them.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Smurf (7981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001863)

I looked at that one... you can't hook up more than one computer and you can't hook up anything that's not thunderbolt.

That last one is a lie. If you had actually seen one of those Thunderbolt monitors you would have noticed that on its back [apple.com] there are three USB ports, one FireWire 800 port, one Ethernet port, and one Thunderbolt port for daisy-chainning. So when you get to work with your laptop you can use a single TB cable to hook it up to external USB/FireWire/TB disks, printers, keyboard+mouse, the gigabit network, and two or more external monitors (if your laptop supports them... MacBook Pros do), all running through the TB interface.

If you're going to spend $1000 on a monitor, get the Dell which has more screen space (area and pixels), and allows hooking up 5 computers and switching between them.

That's very cool. I couldn't find that monitor that allows "hooking up 5 computers" in Dell's website [dell.com] though, but I guess that's because they are not trying too hard to promote a very niche feature that can be obtained with fairly inexpensive gear like this [monoprice.com] or this [monoprice.com] .

Re:No ethernet... (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | more than 2 years ago | (#40001979)

...on its back [apple.com] there are...

No VGA, DVI, HDMI, nor Displayport... That is what I meant... You can't hook up any computer that's not Thunderbolt

I couldn't find that monitor that allows "hooking up 5 computers" in Dell's website

Sorry, I was wrong; it's six [dell.com] .

Oh, nope, the five computer one is here [dell.com]

I'm not a fan of Dell, but their monitors are cool.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997897)

A lot of people use a mobile network already too, or share one via their handset. I'd think that one reason why Apple is removing the ethernet connector is to further integrate (their) static and mobile computing. Being connected by a wire is to be seen as old, but you still have the possibility to do that if you wish. It's just one step further than before (and you'd have to pay for it).

Wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996565)

It's a MacBook Pro (with ethernet), not a MacBook Air (no ethernet).

Re:Wake up (3, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996835)

There are persistent rumors that Apple is going to 'airify' their MacBook Pro line. Following that line of thought, it's assumed that they'll take it to the extreme and not include an ethernet port.

Personally, I think it makes sense that some would think that. But I think they'll realize they'll have trouble calling it a 'pro' laptop without an ethernet port. That said, it is something I'd be double checking for once it's announced.

No harm done.

Wake UP!!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997127)

The model designation reads "MacBookPro", not "MacBookAir". The redesigned 15" MacBook Pro will almost certainly lose the DVD drive and go all SSD, just like the MacBook Air. That's still air-fication without going to the extreme of losing ethernet (which would have yielded a 15" MacBook Air instead).

Re:Wake UP!!!!!!!! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997213)

Just think: When Apple announces it and it matches what you said, then you'll be right!

Re:Wake UP!!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997615)

Better than that: the world will make sense (only MacBook Airs will lack ethernet).
Apple rumors should be considered thoughtfully, a capacity the moderators seem to lack.

Re:Wake UP!!!!!!!! (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998303)

Why not let people choose what they want?

Some people want an optical drive. Some people don't. Some people want a SSD. Some people want a hard drive with 10x the capacity for half the cost.

Re:Wake UP!!!!!!!! (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000831)

Apple is not Dell. They aren't into "build you own your way". They design quality balanced systems. They drive their entire platform which reduces complexity for software vendors and users. If you want something outside the norm, they have wonderful solution you just pay a premium.

They are not into maximum choice, they are into good choices.

Re:Wake UP!!!!!!!! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999277)

The model designation reads "MacBookPro", not "MacBookAir". The redesigned 15" MacBook Pro will almost certainly lose the DVD drive and go all SSD, just like the MacBook Air. That's still air-fication without going to the extreme of losing ethernet (which would have yielded a 15" MacBook Air instead).

HAHAHA.. I'd believe you if I hadn't been stupid and accepted a company laptop as macbook pro before checking that the size of macbook pro I was getting had intel graphics at that time of the year. So in all practicality it's just a macbook(even looks like one, if you'd blacken the Pro it would be very hard to tell the difference) with thunderbolt that I don't do jack shit with. anyhow, they can't go much thinner without losing the ethernet.

besides, it would actually fit _perfectly_ with their plans to sell you a dock/monitor with thunderbolt that had the gigabit ethernet in it. or two, one to home one for work desk.

and it would actually suck bigtime to carry an usb network adapter around.

and why not just call it the macbook? well, so that when you show a chart comparing the two models the names match in length.

Re:Wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998873)

Fuck off, bonch

Re:Wake up (1)

TheStonepedo (885845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997871)

A backlit keyboard and an aluminum case are not "Pro" features.
When Apple discontinued the plastic "Macbook" line and kept the aluminum "Macbook Pro" line it could have branded the 13" model "Macbook" and the larger models with performance upgrades "Macbook Pro".
Giving the 13" "Macbook Pro" performance similar to the now-discontinued base model and charging "Pro" prices for cosmetic features was somewhere between greedy and dishonest.

Re:No ethernet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996833)

The redmond pie article here http://www.redmondpie.com/new-15-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-usb-3.0-and-thinner-profile-almost-ready-for-launch/

seems to have a ethernet port in the rendering. I don't think this was confirmed. I do think they are dropping the optical drive.

Re:No ethernet... (2)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997311)

I thought about that. Then I thought about my usage patterns - TBolt display at work, with GigE to my TBolt display, and wireless everywhere else.

Also, while USB->Ethernet sucks, TBolt -> GigE adapter would work for me. Hell, with TBolt, we can do TBolt -> 10GigE

Re:No ethernet... (1)

willy_me (212994) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998831)

Also, while USB->Ethernet sucks, TBolt -> GigE adapter would work for me. Hell, with TBolt, we can do TBolt -> 10GigE

Well if the rumors are true it would be USB3->Ethernet, which would not suck. Considering how small the adapter is and how space is limited a small laptop, replacing Ethernet with USB3 sounds like a reasonable compromise. It is more common to be lacking a USB port (and not have a hub handy) then to require the speed of ethernet over wireless. But only if it's a USB3 port as USB2 is not sufficient to properly support GigE.

Geekbench confirms it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996453)

The Mac Pro is dead.

Real or Fake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996463)

How difficult is it to fake this sort of thing?

Policy inside Apple has traditionally been one of "If it leaks, and we trace the leak to you, you're fired". So either this is a fake, or an intentional leak designed to get fans buzzing about what is to come. (Not necessarily a bad marketing strategy)

Re:Real or Fake? (1)

bman49er (2518184) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997583)

I personally believe Apple and other companies do this to create the usual buzz. I've heard a few stories where Apple already puts new employees through ridiculous tasks just to see if they can keep secrets. What gets me is that as soon as the latest Apple product comes out, it's like there just HAS to be a rumor or story about the next product that hasn't even gone a full year cycle. Beside every new rumor headline for Apple devices I usually put "It would be nice to have..." in front of it.

Where's the Desktops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996491)

They need to put out some new Desktops for the mid-range market, like they used to in the olden times. They also need to put out some new monster Mac Pro workstations.
Currently, the Hackintosh scene fills the gap of mid-range desktop Macs and Apple gets only the $29 price of the OS if the modders choose to play nice and purchase it. So they could either put out desktop Macs or just go ahead and license the OS to the thousands out there who already use it on their mid-range desktop PCs.

Re:Where's the Desktops? (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997089)

Or they could put a dongle in the Lion USB drive and say if it's got the dongle it's licensed, we don't support OSX on non-apple hardware but we're not going to do anything intentionally stop it from running on non-apple hardware so long as it's got the dongle, then just don't make any dick moves as far as hardware drivers go.

Of course this is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

Not even 64-bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39996497)

Nice numbers... and they're not even for the 64-bit version of the benchmark.

This appears to be a mostly skip it chipset (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39996633)

and the same goes for Mac products, except in the possibility there may be a 15 inch Air style MacBook Pro coming. So unless they have moved SSDs more mainstream in the iMac I really don't see any reason to move if you have a current or previous year model of those machines.

Many have been very curious about the long time without update or hint thereof for the Mac Pro tower. There is a good amount of pent up demand for a newer model but even that number of people may not be sufficient to attract Apple much.

Why is this even remotely interesting? (3, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997303)

Why is this even remotely interesting? We know Intel has released Ivy Bridge. We know there are other companies already using Ivy Bridge. Apple's current offerings are a generation or two behind the existing status quo for high-end hardware on the laptop/desktop market. It is a no brainer that, yes, Apple would also use the next generation of hardware, too.

This is not even remotely news worthy (though it might be for macrumours.com or whatever). Now, if they were changing architectures back to PPC or to ARM on the desktop, that might be something worth talking about!

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997473)

Generally, some of the Intel processors the MacBooks use precedes not lags the current generation of mobile chips as Apple normally works extensively with Intel so that they have a head start from other competitors. In the past, Apple used stepped down Core 2 chips for power savings. Where Apple normally lags is that they don't refresh as often as their competitors. The MacBook Air concept in itself is what Intel is now calling "ultrabook" specifications. In other aspects like Thunderbolt, Apple is ahead of competitors by a year. It's news as it gives us a peak at what mobile chips may be coming out that Intel hasn't announced.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998231)

If they announced that it was using a mobile chip that Intel hasn't announced, then I think we can all agree it would be news. But they didn't, so it's not.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999387)

Confirmation is news. There were rumors that Apple would make the Pros like the Air. The Airs have slower processors for power efficiency. The processor will be standard so it's unlikely Apple will change that aspect.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39998245)

Bullshit.

Care to provide a reference?

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999371)

Wikipedia if you aren't too lazy to do your own research:

The CPU in the first-generation MacBook Air was a custom engineered Intel Core 2 Duo Merom that was 40 percent of the size of the standard chip package.[17] For models of late-2008,The CPU was replaced with a low-voltage Core 2 Duo Penryn chip with 6MB of cache, running on a 1066MHz bus.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999351)

they had a negotiated 1 year headstart to tuberculosis.
and these two cpu's mentioned here... have been out for a month, you can get them from ebay, so the only news here is that apple may be refreshing the cpu's.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39997531)

The only reason it would be interesting is due to the fact that it's Apple, and that it's a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro hasn't been updated since July of 2010, and in computer terms, that's ancient. In Apple terms, where they usually don't support something that is older than 3 years, July 2010 is fucking ancient.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999287)

Reread the story. It said MacBook Pro. A laptop.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000389)

MacBook Pro.

Re:Why is this even remotely interesting? (1)

wfolta (603698) | more than 2 years ago | (#39997667)

Why is this even remotely interesting? We know Intel has released Ivy Bridge. We know there are other companies already using Ivy Bridge. Apple's current offerings are a generation or two behind the existing status quo for high-end hardware on the laptop/desktop market. It is a no brainer that, yes, Apple would also use the next generation of hardware, too.

In spite of being "a generation or two behind", people really like Mac laptops, so are excited about what might happen. (In actuality, as UnknowingFool points out, Apple is also ahead of competitors by years: Thunderbolt, Ultrabook, etc.) The fact that Apple will probably be releasing Mountain Lion at the same time, may have Air-ified the MacBook Pro lineup, might add full-width trackpad, etc, adds interest even if it's not directly related to Ivy Bridge.

Poor Apple intern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999259)

They leaked the full serial number of the device... Which means, some poor Apple intern probably just got fired. =(

So it's slower for iTunes (1)

bgspence (155914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999627)

iTunes peaks out at 100% of a single CPU usage in its single threaded mode.

So I'm better off with 1/2 of two processors at 10,500 than 1/4 of 4 processors at 12,252

5,250 crushes 3,083

Any single threaded app wins huge on old gear.

Re:So it's slower for iTunes (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 2 years ago | (#40000271)

You (and Geekbench) may not be taking turbo mode into account. Quad-cores generally turbo to the same frequency as duals when you're only using one core.

Re:So it's slower for iTunes (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40002691)

When do you manage to get iTunes to max out CPU usage?

I'm genuinely curious as I have a 40+ GiB iTunes library (with the actual media files stored on another machine and mounted via NFS) and I can't remember the last time iTunes maxed out a single CPU core.

MacBook first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40000019)

I think they would remove the ethernet on the constumer grade macbook before they remove it from the macbook pro. You can usually see these kinds of things coming from apple.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>