The near by Macbook and MBP

Since the macbook and mbp's are really hot even with core duo chips, do you think they will do something to fix it with their core 2 duo's? If they don't it will even be hotter than now.

 

I'd expect heat to be similar. It seems like various individual models vary in heat anyway. There are plenty of people with MB's and MBP's who don't find them to be "really hot", for what it's worth.

 

They really aren't hot anymore. I picked up a week 38 yesterday and is gets slightly warm on bottom, but not hot by any means. I also had one when they first came out and it was extremely hot.

 

There isn't much difference in power useage between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo so it shouldn't be any hotter.

 

What's the reason for people saying that they prefer core duo over the core 2 duo?

 

I can't imagine. The Core 2 Duo only has advantages over the Core Duo, no drawbacks that I'm aware of.

 

Who was saying they prefer Core Duo over Core 2 Duo? It's not something I've heard. I think the bigger sentiment is that generally many people don't feel like Core 2 Duo is a huge advance in and of itself (at least not until the santa rosa platform and 64-bit OS X 10.5 and Vista come around). But I've never heard of someone saying they prefer Core Duo over Core 2 Duo.

 

I don't know about everyone else and their opinions, but I consider having a higher TDP as a drawback.

 

k here is the question, what would operate better?
Both with the same cpu

I meant to say this...

1. Core duo with 1gb ram
2. Core 2 duo with 1gb ram

 

Anything that has more memory is going to operate better.

2 is the obvisous answer here.

However switch the memory amount around, then the core duo would give the core 2 duo a run for its money.

 

Yes... but how much software will actually be able to take advantage of 4+ gigs of ram (besides server software)?

 

It's only 34w on the Core 2 Duo versus 31w on the Core Duo. I'd consider that to be fairly minor.

 

When it comes down to someone who travels around with a notebook a lot like I do, getting every bit you can get is worth it.

 

Touche, point taken.
That's one of the reasons I picked up an SZ - travel alot and like the ability to switch between graphics cards to save juice. But even so I think I'd be a little more worried if it were more like a 10w difference. Just me personally, I'd accept the trade-off for the added performance available from running 64-bit in Leopard.

 

How much of a difference do you notice between the two in terms of battery life savings? When I first heard about this in the SZ series, I thought it was a great idea..... but many of the reviews I read indicates that the actual battery life difference ended up being fairly minor (something like about 20-30 minutes of extra life). Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but my expecation at least is to see more difference.

 

I'd say it's closer to an hour's difference in my case. But that's probably due to the fact that if I've got the GeForce 7400 switched on I've also got all the power settings up full tilt because I'm running something that needs it.

 

Ahh, very cool.

I'm still kind of surprised that the SZ is still seemingly the only laptop out there with switchable graphics cards. It seems like a great idea that would be pretty beneficial on a wide variety of laptops (heck, even with big crazy 17" gaming laptops it would be nice to be able to switch to an Intel GMA950 when you didn't need all the power of a high-end graphics card).

 

Now, I've been hearing about lower wattage C2D chips now. Are those still 34w? or are they a slightly redesigned merom chip that runs at an even lower voltage?

 

Yea, there is but maybe not on the market yet. They r call ultra low voltage blah blah blah.... like the ones u found on the Sony TX series, but going duo core, sometime soon. But dun expect them to compete with C2D by speed.