Quad-core MacBook Pro on the way?
Intel sneaked out a new low-cost quad-core mobile processor on Monday, prompting some observers to wonder if Apple will finally release a quad-core laptop.
The lack of fanfare surrounding the 2.53GHz Core 2 Quad Mobile Processor Q9000's introduction--it was merely added to Intel's CPU price list--is certainly interesting. It's a slow news week between Christmas and New Year's, so why not play it up?, is how the logic goes.
APCMag.com says it's possible Apple's been waiting for the processor to arrive from Intel, and it just happens to coincide with Macworld next week.
That could also explain why Apple redesigned and upgraded its 13.3-inch MacBook and 15-inch MacBook Pro, but said little about the 17-inch MacBook Pro's eventual makeover.
So far Acer, which immediately announced a new laptop using Intel's newest processor, is the only PC maker that has confirmed it is using it.
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 
Without that big new display with a faster computer (new, faster computers are coming out?!!??!?!?) he's toast.
However, Apple still offers 1400x900 on top of the line MBP with 15.4" screen!!! Thats really lame!! Can't they at least offer 1650x1050?
I've Leovo T61p (15.4" ) with 1920x1200 resolution!!! OSX on it is just awesome!!!
Apple must be making huge profit margin by offering such a display!!
Ironically, Mac OS X scales much better to higher dpi numbers, while most of Windows and its applications use hardcoded 8pt font.
You also have to consider power consumption: higher resolution means that GPU needs to do more work and consume more power.
P.S. We had a clash in office recently. Who would thought that would happen: IT came to replace old 19" with new widescreen 23" displays but people en masse refused. 19" @ 1280x1024 is much much more pleasing to look at and work with for 8 hours a day. 23" @ 1920x1200 make most corporate application look tiny and unusable. Technical upgrades are not always mean upgrades in usability.
Ironically Phillips, you are such a Mac fanboy that you're too dumb with Windows to bash it properly. THAT is irony.
Windows is NOT hardcoded to 8pt font (I think you mean dpi...that's not hardcoded either).
I'm viewing this right now in 11pt font at 120dpi on a Vista box. The default is 96dpi and it will go up to 480 in 1 pt increments. Explain to me how that is hardcoded? Don't go saying XP...it's not hardcoded either.
I would also never pass up a larger 1920x1200 display for a smaller 1280x1024 display unless the monitor was utter crap. You can scale the DPI you know?? ... oh wait, you didn't.
...The irony..
You appear to be proud of illegal activities on your part by admitting publicly here that you have hacked OS X to run on a non-Apple computer and don't seem to rea
Until full resolution-independent OS's are the norm, I think the majority of folk will do fine with their machines.
I'll forgo the dumb quip about you must be being an optometrist?THIS time.
Wow... That's great... High resolution does NOT mean it uses more power, maybe when you are running a game. Everyday usage, does not effect the power to be noticeable.
No, come to think of it I'm ditching Honda altogether- why and with those auto-subsidies I can prolly get a really great Chevy.
Wow! Your wit is as slick as my underwear.
Normally they're seemingly over priced.
- by hslikhari December 31, 2008 3:22 PM PST
- Perhaps they'll feature in the new imacs?
- Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)