When will the 12'' Macbook Pro come out?!

[mongoose8p]

i would say never i think they wanna stick witht he widescreens for now and idk i just don't see that big a difference between 13.3 and 12 and it would not sell well as a macbook pro because of the cost and ppl. wont justify it if there is no 12 inch macbook
back in the day of ibooks there was a 12' ibook and a 12 inch powerbook
this way ppl. had a choice ppl. are going to look at the 12"macbook pro and say why not get a 13.3" macbook so i think never

 

[ZachPruckowski]

Never, since it can't handle a high end gpu anyway why would they need it when they already have the macbook?

what's the point of having a high end GPU with a 10-12 inch monitor that's at most 1280x800 (WXGA) or 1152x864 (XGA+)? You don't need much power to have a high framerate at that res, it's too small for gaming or graphics-intensive work. Heck, any X3100-based integrated graphics would be more than ample for that, and even the current graphics could easily handle it.

And I think you miss the size point. Macbooks are small, but we're talking ultra-small, optimized to take up as little weight and bag space as possible. We're talking ultra-low-voltage processors, with a battery life of 8 hours or more. Macbooks are nice but can't compete in that arena. 13-inch widescreen is not really all that small.

 

[squeeks]

does intel have any, or have any plans for an "ultra-low-voltage" processor?

No.

what's the point of having a high end GPU with a 10-12 inch monitor that's at most 1280x800 (WXGA) or 1152x864 (XGA+)? You don't need much power to have a high framerate at that res,

no, you dont need that much video MEMORY you still need a high end card/chip if you're going to do any kind of gaming or graphic intensive work...see macbook

the macbook has a small 13" screen, go try and play games on it then tell us how a small screen dosent need a high-end chip

 

[lord patton]

Among other considerations, Apple wants to differentiate its products from one another. A small MBP has to have ways to do that. I think the magic ticket that makes this possible is screen resolution.

The high-res option on the 17" MBP is a sign of things to come. Apple could offer a high res 12" laptop, making it suitable for photo and film pros, that could justify the cost premium relative to the macbook.

IF, that is, a high res 12" screen could be usable. (not tiny tiny fonts) For that, I think we need the resolution independence that is supposedly coming with Leopard.

So with that, I think that if a small MBP is coming, it will launch with Leopard, or shortly thereafter, at MWSF '08.

Of course, I have no idea if high res 12" screens exist, or if res-independence will happen for real with Leopard.

 

[squeeks]

so where have any of you seen anything having to do with this so called resolution independence in leopard?

ive never heard anything about it, and i sure havent seen a way to use in the the current leopard beta...

 

[William9]

I just don't think the 12 inch PowerBook will be re-incarnated in the form of a MacBook Pro.

I think the MacBook replaced it.

I'd bank on an ultra-portable Mac, later this year, maybe next year.

The ultraportable Mac is already out. It's called iPhone

 

[juanster]

yeah i dont see it hapening either..

 

[yadmonkey]

Nobody wants a 12" or 13.3" version of the Macbook Pro more than I, but I suspect it won't happen. Apple is selling unprecidented numbers of their laptops and I think they're figuring out the value of limiting the number of portables they offer.

13.3" MBP is not going to happen I don't think. If you compare the 15" to the 13.3" MB, it's not much bigger, making the extra effort to squeeze it into a 13.3" shell seem hardly worth it. And as for the 12" ultraportable, I think that could happen, but I don't think it will be a MBP. My guess is that Apple's "ultraportable" will have integrated graphics like the Macbook, if it shows up at all.

(my 2¢)