macbooks have now had a boost in speed, hard drive, power, everything. They are now improved, "no" I hear you cry "they already cost loads and this will make it more expensive, right?" wrong. The new and improved macbooks haven't even kept the price the same, but have in fact reduced, now you could by a pretty awsome macbook, for under a grand (including the one I want )

Hmm, that's pretty good, upgraded memory is very important aswell. Harddrives are cheaper, aswell. Black still costs a bombshell, though.

But they're already out of date because they don't have Santa Rosa...

I'll be holding off. This upgrade was a stop gap until they bring out Santa Rosa.

Santa Rosa? What's that?

It's Intel's new type of processor (the model after Conroe and Merom). It'll have a die shrink down to 45nm and an increased bus frequency to improve overall system performance. It'll be a DDR3 chip, too.

Ah, cool, well I won't be getting one till next year, if I do get one, anyway.

yeh same, I wont either, maybe they will release "santa rose" at the same time as leopard, give all the computers a new spin. or maybe after, thats what apple seem to do, make everything obsolete every month, lol. But all knowing aaron, howd you find out about this stuff.

They don't make things obsolete, they keep it up to date but the older stuff still works well. They wouldn't want to be selling out of date stuff.

Santa Rosa is the next processor in the series that MacBooks are currently using. Intel have announced it, so it is a fair bet that MacBooks will use it. It will also be available for PCs.

Indeed. I can tell you that Apple will be redesigning the MacBook as they have recently purchased several thousand LCD screens with a 1280x880 resolution... 1280x880??? That's whacky...

1280x880? They exist?!?!

how do you know what apple are buying!?!?! and yeh, is that wide screen or something, never heard of that size. And is there a release date for leopard, havent really checked, last time i did i think they were saying spring or summer 2007, but that was ages ago

880? that makes it 16:11 ratio. WTF are we hearding back to 4:3 now, widescreen was 16:9 but on computers 16:10. But 16:11?!? thats too close to 16:12 which of course is 4:3

It's just weird. It's such an unusual resolution that things wouldn't support it...

Well I did hear that Apple were heading for resolution independance with Leopard, which is to be released some time in October by the way.

Interesting, I would think normal resolutions would still be better, though.

Maybe they're planning to do something with that additional space?

Extra, isn't it 20pixels shorter?

No, 80 pixels taller.

OK, I thought standard res was 1280x900, but now I see that that must be wrong when I write it...