PDA

View Full Version : Apple Releases Updated MacBook Pros With Core i5 and i7 Processors




Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 11:15 AM
Lenovo IdeaPad Y560 w/ Core i7: $1299

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:category.details?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087&current-category-id=536DDAD2272C43B4B4EFE41A7A5D7192


Intel® Core™ i7-720QM Processor ( 1.60GHz 1333MHz 6MB )
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730 1GB
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz
500GB 7200 rpm hard drive

It was on sale last week for $999 with a coupon code.

It's also got suspect build quality, the 15" screen is 1366x768 and very mediocre (you can see for yourself if you find one in a store near you).

There are a ton of laptops like this, with nice specs, but to get to those low price points, they cheap out elsewhere. It all depends on what is important to you. If you want a flimsy plastic machine with a terrible screen, and want to save $1000, it's definitely an option.



lilo777
Apr 13, 2010, 11:15 AM
I'm already looking for other laptops. But which ones? Best one I see would be the Dell XPS 16? Which of course is way cheaper than the MBP. It has a 1080p Full HD Display, 4GB Ram, 500GB, ATI Radeon 4670 1GB

Well, the usual suspects are DELL Studio XPS, HP Envy and Sony VAIO (Z or F). Asus also has very interesting models

willdenow
Apr 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
You still don't get it. The high price is the actual draw for many. When someone points out how outdated Apple laptops are, they can argue then that those are sore losers who can not afford Apple prices. :D

you said it brother. this is one of a handful of stock phrases that macolytes employ as a dodge whenever someone points out that their religious icon of choice somehow comes up short. i switched to Apple in the late 90s because i needed to use software for research that was mac only. since then, i have been quite pleased, particularly by the renaissance that the company underwent when they switched to os x and then to intel. for much of the naughties, apple really were in lead, but then they got tempted by the dark side and began to focus attention away from computers and toward consumer electronic devices which offered two advantages over the desktops and laptops: (i) they were much cheaper to produce and thus could fatten fat profit margins even further, and (ii) they offered apple a completely closed system, with the ability not only to control the design and sale of the product, but EVERYTHING associated with the product. heck, they even get to approve what goes ON the product. i'll wager that if they thought they could get away with it, they'd jettison all open codecs, such as mp3, and disallow you from loading your own multimedia, but rather force you to download (and pay) for it repeatedly. who knows, maybe that's where all of this is going. but i know where it's NOT going, and that is a focus on their core desktop/laptop computer business.

jwloader
Apr 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
i'm not normally one to chime in on such debates but here it is:

The new top-end 17" MacBook Pro cost £2,458.99 with the i7 dual-core CPU, 8 GB RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive. A reasonable spec for a mobile photographer / video / audio editor like myself.

The Dell Precision 6500M costs £2,492.00 for a true quad-core i7 with Win 7 64 bit with 8 GB RAM and two 160 hard drives in a RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration as well as a 1GB nVIDIA FX3800M graphics card. Okay it's uglier, the battery pack is large, the battery life is woeful and it weighs a kilo more - but it's intended to be a luggable desktop replacement with proper power for those that need it - us photo and video guys. Also included is a 3 year warranty! Get Adobe CS5 running on it and you've got a very compelling reason to leave Final Cut Studio for dust.

Even Apple's own 'pro' apps aren't optimised for hyper-threading or multiple CPUs - anyone who's rendered on the timeline in FCP or bounced out of Logic will know what I mean. Barely one core being utilised if you're lucky!

Adobe's Premiere runs 3 times faster for renders on my Mac Pro in Win 7 via Boot Camp than Premiere for OS X. That may change with CS5, but surely Apple is in danger of losing the market that made them way back when - the creative professionals?

I understand that the new 17" MacBook Pro strikes a balance between power consumption and performance - but surely there should be a fully-fledged desktop replacement build-to-order option?

jeff1977
Apr 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
This has to be one of the most inappropriate comments I've read on this board in a long time. How ignorant and disappointing.

I'm guessing he watches a lot of FOX News!

JohnWyatt
Apr 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
So im completly happy about the update, which i should be because im only a college student whos majoring in nursing. Im not doing any graphic desgin nor am i using mine for work. So for me the specs are outstanding. 10 hr battery life? i dont think you can beat that. plus a faster processor, better graphics, standard 4gb of ram, bigger hard drive. i cant wait to go out and finally get one. But i do understand where people are getting pissed, especially the professionals, some of the specs would dissapoint me to.

and for the people who keep saying they shouldnt have waited.... wouldnt you still want the most recent updated machine...rather one that is a year old? thats just my opinion.

im completly happy and will stay happy about the update.

Thanks :)

MH01
Apr 13, 2010, 11:18 AM
Here are some benchmarks. You can use the link below to check the cpu u have versus the new ones released.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html


and something I send around before

GT 330M
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
9600 GT
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9600M-GT.9449.0.html

If you have a pre unibody MBP, this is a nice upgrade for you, if you have a current unibody you might want to think twice, and instead of selling the current MBP and buying the new one, invest in a SSD, this will give you a much bigger real world benefit (in most situations).

LSS
Apr 13, 2010, 11:19 AM
Anyone know how GT 330M 256MB compares to GT 9600M 512MB?

twoodcc
Apr 13, 2010, 11:20 AM
well glad to see this update. i wonder if that 10 hour battery is accurate?

plexuss
Apr 13, 2010, 11:20 AM
I decided to buy a used 17" unibody 2.66 a few weeks ago. I saved $800 over buying the new 17" and frankly for what what the new one has, im glad I got the used one. I find it good, in general, to buy a used apple of a generation that is tried and true rather than jumping on the new models. the reason, outside of cost, is often apple hardware has critical issues and more often than not apple doesn't do anything about it and you end up stuck with a debilitated machine with less resale value because the community knows of the problems.

I'll these new machines prove themselves and then when the next generation after that comes out, upgrade to a used machine, again. In my decades as a mac user, i find this is where i get the optimum value.

tivoboy
Apr 13, 2010, 11:22 AM
I know it must be somewhere here in this thread, but wow with 760# posts already I cannot find it,

but, once again, if one wants to have a MATTE option (NEEDS a matte option!) then it will cost $$$, not only because it appears to be at least 100$ and more like 150$ more, but also it won't be a MODEL, but rather a build to order model, meaning no option to purchase from AMAZON for example.

thanks apple, I thought only the airlines and banks were nickle and dimeing me to death

MacTheSpoon
Apr 13, 2010, 11:23 AM
To be honest, I was expecting more, given Steve Jobs' comments.

Aqua Structure
Apr 13, 2010, 11:25 AM
A lot of people seem to be focusing on the price of the entry-level MBPs (and justifiably so - $1500 for a C2D is obscene). I also agree that this latest revision is somewhat lacking in features, particularly Blu-Ray. However, little or no attention has been paid to a rather important fact: the new high-end models with i7 absolutely whallop the competition right now from a pricing standpoint. All PC laptops I've found with i7 are utilizing the 1.6 or 1.7GHz processors, and these are priced comparably to the i7 15" MPB. But the MBP uses a 2.66GHz chip, which would probably jack up a comparable PC by at least $400-500. The thing is, no other manufacturer is currently offering these processors.

Also, was anyone really expecting USB 3.0? Intel doesn't support that on its roadmap until at least the end of 2011 (sigh) and Apple is slavishly devoted to Intel chipsets (double sigh).

Bubba Satori
Apr 13, 2010, 11:25 AM
Wow, expensive junk, missing features and crap video cards.
I bet that's never happened before. What a surprise. :apple::rolleyes:

EagerDragon
Apr 13, 2010, 11:26 AM
listen, my laptop is a 4 year old HP with 1Gb of RAM, 90Gb HDD and God knows what processor (AMD Turion 64 but don't even know the clock)

i wanted to upgrate to a MacBook Pro and since i can't afford the 15'' i was hoping for the 13'' to be a great machine...ok it didn't get an i5, but is that really a bad deal? i'm mean, i'm gonna love it right? you are all guys with a lot of Apple things, most of you already have a Macbook Pro not bought a long time ago...for YOU it's probably what it is a MINOR update, but for people like me it's great...my laptop lasts 45min, this 10h...and etc.

so please tell me will i be able to use the new CS5 well in a low-end 13''? will i be happy with it? i'm fed up with windows...

Buy the best you can afford, the MBP 13" sounds like it will fit just fine. Try to save some money and later upgrade the memory to 8Gig.

The MBP when compared to a 4 year old HP will probably be a lot faster than you can imagine and you also get to use OSX instead of windows. By the way VMware and parallel will allow you to move your current PC environment to the Mac to deal with the PC software you already invested money into. As times goes by you will end up using windows less and less.

slffl
Apr 13, 2010, 11:26 AM
Let the griping and bitching about something begin

No kidding!! I can't believe the negatives on this story. Go buy your Dells and Sonys if you think they are so much better you damn babies.

DLovett
Apr 13, 2010, 11:27 AM
A lot of people seem to be focusing on the price of the entry-level MBPs (and justifiably so - $1500 for a C2D is obscene). I also agree that this latest revision is somewhat lacking in features, particularly Blu-Ray. However, little or no attention has been paid to a rather important fact: the new high-end models with i7 absolutely whallop the competition right now from a pricing standpoint. All PC laptops I've found with i7 are utilizing the 1.6 or 1.7GHz processors, and these are priced comparably to the i7 15" MPB. But the MBP uses a 2.66GHz chip, which would probably jack up a comparable PC by at least $400-500. The thing is, no other manufacturer is currently offering these processors.

Also, was anyone really expecting USB 3.0? Intel doesn't support that on its roadmap until at least the end of 2011 (sigh) and Apple is slavishly devoted to Intel chipsets (double sigh).

The 1.6 and 1.7 GHz are quad-core models which will run between 2.8-3 GHz as soon as new power is needed.

There is quite a performance difference.

MH01
Apr 13, 2010, 11:29 AM
Wow, expensive junk, missing features and crap video cards.
I bet that's never happened before. What a surprise. :apple::rolleyes:

he he he, whats wrong with a DX 10.1 Graphics card :) Especially as ATI and nvidia move to DX 11, future-proofing pfffft...

Aqua Structure
Apr 13, 2010, 11:29 AM
crap video cards.
Also not understanding this complaint. The GT 330M is best-in-class for performance to price ratio, and Optimus technology is going to make switching between Intel's ****** onboard chip and the NVIDIA chip a breeze.

DLovett
Apr 13, 2010, 11:31 AM
The GT 330M is best-in-class for performance to price ratio

Because that's what Apple products are all about! Yeah!

Aqua Structure
Apr 13, 2010, 11:31 AM
The 1.6 and 1.7 GHz are quad-core models which will run between 2.8-3 GHz as soon as new power is needed.

There is quite a performance difference.

Ah, I had assumed they were the dual-core models. I will concede that this is a pretty poor showing.

DJ CLeaR
Apr 13, 2010, 11:32 AM
Thanks a lot!

So, at a least a 15' MBP? As I'll be moving to a Mac computer, which program do you use?


I use Serato Scratch Live hooked up to Stanton vinyl decks and a Behringer Digital 4 channel mixer. Not top of the line but gets the job done. I also have the Ableton Launchpad, Korg Kaoss Pad, and the Korg Kaossilator.

I've been using a 7 year old macbook pro and let me tell you this update is huge for me. Serato software pre-scans each digital track to auto detect BPM and pre-build wave forms. On my old Mac this takes about 1-2 minutes per track, so when I have 30-50 new tracks to load it takes me forever.
With the new system these should build in less and 5 seconds per track (based on testing it out on my MacPro Quad Core tower).
I am getting the 15" i7 mainly because I also do Sound Design and want the extra horsepower to push Soundtrack Pro and Ableton. If you are just using it for DJing you could get away with the 15" i5, but for $200 more you get the i7.

Bleubird2
Apr 13, 2010, 11:32 AM
You don't like where you live? Move.

I hate this arrogant attitude. Moving from state to state is one thing, but moving countries has a whole bunch of other issues. I'm sure many people would like to move to the US, but they don't have the option of moving here because of legal and monetary issues. Besides, maybe the Brits that live in the UK don't want to deal with arrogant and ignorant Americans such as yourself.

lilo777
Apr 13, 2010, 11:33 AM
So im completly happy about the update, which i should be because im only a college student whos majoring in nursing. Im not doing any graphic desgin nor am i using mine for work. So for me the specs are outstanding. 10 hr battery life? i dont think you can beat that. plus a faster processor, better graphics, standard 4gb of ram, bigger hard drive. i cant wait to go out and finally get one. But i do understand where people are getting pissed, especially the professionals, some of the specs would dissapoint me to.

and for the people who keep saying they shouldnt have waited.... wouldnt you still want the most recent updated machine...rather one that is a year old? thats just my opinion.

im completly happy and will stay happy about the update.

Thanks :)

Well, of course you can beat 10h battery life. This Sony VAIO X (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644667494)offers 14hours (and is much much lighter)

alent1234
Apr 13, 2010, 11:37 AM
Do you people not look at the details at all? The NVidia GT320M is a custom part apparently for Apple, and significantly better than the stock Intel HD integrated graphics (which is what Apple would have to offer with the 13" model if they didn't want to also include a dedicated graphics offering).

The previous 13" MBP had NVidia 9400M graphics which were similarly better than the comparable Intel integrated graphics option.

Again, short of Apple offering a 13" model with dedicated graphics (I wouldn't object to it, but it's not something they do), this is not really a bad option.

One of the biggest worries people had was that Apple was going to offer a Core i3 and Intel HD integrated graphics in the 13" model (a common combination seen on other laptops).

there is no such thing as a custom graphics chip anymore. nvidia make graphics chips based on their latest core and the last generation core and disable features based on customers' requests. the only thing custom is the BIOS to control clock speed and the exact features licensed.

both nvidia and ATI get asked to sell chips with custom model numbers and features to all the OEM's. the biggest reason is to sell cheapo last generation parts with model numbers that make them seem like they are from this generation.

SeaFox
Apr 13, 2010, 11:37 AM
Anybody?
You don't need anything fancy to DJ. I've seen plenty of DJ's using iBooks to spin tunes. :rolleyes:

compuguy1088
Apr 13, 2010, 11:38 AM
I hate it that now the MBPs not only have an 8 hour battery but also automatic graphics switching. My 1 and a half year "old" Unibody's battery only holds like an hour and a half and I have to logout/login each freaking time I unplug or plug it back to the power adapter (so like 6 times a day) to swap graphics or else the battery runs out even faster!

I think this is a great update but I'm sad that the "older" unibodies won't be getting automatic graphics switching, even if the hardware supports it!

OH and these new bastards also support up to 8GB of RAM! Who said Macs go obsolete within 3-5 years? It's one freaking year!

*Shrug* I've been using a MBP 15" 2.4 SR since 2007, still going strong.

MH01
Apr 13, 2010, 11:39 AM
Also not understanding this complaint. The GT 330M is best-in-class for performance to price ratio, and Optimus technology is going to make switching between Intel's ****** onboard chip and the NVIDIA chip a breeze.

best in class??? Is that the nvidia class? heard of ATI MOBILITY RADEON HD 5650 dx 11 and better performance.

The GT 330m is midrange. And rebranded GT 230M

Strobe
Apr 13, 2010, 11:40 AM
A lot of people seem to be focusing on the price of the entry-level MBPs (and justifiably so - $1500 for a C2D is obscene). I also agree that this latest revision is somewhat lacking in features, particularly Blu-Ray. However, little or no attention has been paid to a rather important fact: the new high-end models with i7 absolutely whallop the competition right now from a pricing standpoint. All PC laptops I've found with i7 are utilizing the 1.6 or 1.7GHz processors, and these are priced comparably to the i7 15" MPB. But the MBP uses a 2.66GHz chip, which would probably jack up a comparable PC by at least $400-500. The thing is, no other manufacturer is currently offering these processors.

Also, was anyone really expecting USB 3.0? Intel doesn't support that on its roadmap until at least the end of 2011 (sigh) and Apple is slavishly devoted to Intel chipsets (double sigh).

You must of looked over the fact that the 1.6/1.7 GHz PC laptops are QM models which are quads. The MBP 2.66GHz i7 is a DUAL core still. The QM's actually cost more. So that would raise the MBP price 100-200 so your way off.

Joey2250
Apr 13, 2010, 11:40 AM
Agreed! I am very glad to see that the 17" didn't get a price increase and that it still has an express card slot.

Enjoy the update while you can folks, it'll be another year before we see anything new in the MBP front. It'll be two iPad updates, an iPhone update and a Mac Pro update before then. There are only five people working on Mac OS 10.7 right now, so we may not even see an update for that any time soon.
Lucky it does have a express slot, it will be able to support USB3 before Apple adopts the tried and true technology in 2013.

MH01
Apr 13, 2010, 11:42 AM
Lucky it does have a express slot, it will be able to support USB3 before Apple adopts the tried and true technology in 2013.

he he he, well that is 5 years ahead of Blue-ray (2018)

hd0
Apr 13, 2010, 11:45 AM
lol. i'm still using my 13" 2Ghz Core 2 Duo macbook with the intel GMA 950 chip. don't plan on upgrading until the 13" get the new cpu's.

iBug2
Apr 13, 2010, 11:46 AM
Did they actually decrease price on the high end one? I remember buying 3.06 MBP last June and paying around 2800$ now the priciest you can get is 2450$.

Moks
Apr 13, 2010, 11:48 AM
Nothing here to make me regret switching back to the dark side after 8 years of iBooks / MacBooks.

I've just ordered a Kobalt G870 (17.3" full HD 1920x1080, i7-720QM Quad core, 4GB 1333MHz DDR3, ATI Mobility Radeon 5870 1GB DDR5, 80GB Intel SSD + 500GB 7200rpm Hard Drive, express card 54, 7-in-1 card reader, HDMI, eSata, etc. etc., 2 years warranty as standard). Costs less than the base spec 17" MacBook Pro. Yes I know the battery life will totally suck but I run my MacBook plugged in 99.9% of the time anyway.

Yes I prefer OSX but Win 7 ain't bad. As for viruses, i've been using windows since version 3.1 (3.11, 95, 98, NT, XP, Vista) alongside OSX and never had one.

shervieux
Apr 13, 2010, 11:49 AM
i'm not normally one to chime in on such debates but here it is:

The new top-end 17" MacBook Pro cost £2,458.99 with the i7 dual-core CPU, 8 GB RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive. A reasonable spec for a mobile photographer / video / audio editor like myself.

The Dell Precision 6500M costs £2,492.00 for a true quad-core i7 with Win 7 64 bit with 8 GB RAM and two 160 hard drives in a RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration as well as a 1GB nVIDIA FX3800M graphics card. Okay it's uglier, the battery pack is large, the battery life is woeful and it weighs a kilo more - but it's intended to be a luggable desktop replacement with proper power for those that need it - us photo and video guys. Also included is a 3 year warranty! Get Adobe CS5 running on it and you've got a very compelling reason to leave Final Cut Studio for dust.

Even Apple's own 'pro' apps aren't optimised for hyper-threading or multiple CPUs - anyone who's rendered on the timeline in FCP or bounced out of Logic will know what I mean. Barely one core being utilised if you're lucky!

Adobe's Premiere runs 3 times faster for renders on my Mac Pro in Win 7 via Boot Camp than Premiere for OS X. That may change with CS5, but surely Apple is in danger of losing the market that made them way back when - the creative professionals?

I understand that the new 17" MacBook Pro strikes a balance between power consumption and performance - but surely there should be a fully-fledged desktop replacement build-to-order option?

Maybe with these new machines out, Apple will update their pro apps for the hyper-threading and multiple CPU's. I mean why release software that everyone will complain will not run? Now they have the machines, and the software updates may be coming? Also what version of OS X are you running? is it the newest Snow Leopard for multi-core, etc or you still running Leopard?

Me I am still running leopard and my 2008 whitebook still runs like a charm. I ditched Premier elements. I used to run it on windows, but the version I have (3.0) did not run properly on Xp professional, and several Adobe techs told me it was Designed for Xp Media Center edition. I took a look at the newer versions and it was too much like iMovie and they even cut out the timeline (they said since iMovie is the most popular consumer editor freely availble on the mac, our premier elements will be exactly like the version in iLife '08 and we will no longer release a mac vesion of premeir elements).

I also talked to Adobe about Premier in the CS# versions (seeing if it would be worth shelling out over $1,000), they said they took out some of the optimizing and features; not because of Apple machine capability; but more because they did not want to support 2 versions long term and wanted to concentrate more on Windows users. They said eventually they wanted one code set to maintain, and since the world works on Windows - that was their target.

So see, Adobe admitted to me they were not interested in properly performing Apple products. Let's not blame Apple here (and I am not 100% of a fanboi, I still use some Windows apps); blame the 3rd party software makers for crippling apps.

It happens both ways, I seen software companies cripple apps on Windows for enhancing Apple or Linux based apps, and I seen software companies cripple other platforms for enhancing Windows based apps. it all depends on where their vision and the programming talent they have lie.

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 11:51 AM
1080p is sooooooo overrated. I think the idea of it appeals to ppl more than the practicality.

I actually agree. I think you really wouldn't see any difference at all between the 1080P and the high res display it currently has. I was just refering to the "better" (for lack of a better word) technology we see in cheaper computers

stodge
Apr 13, 2010, 11:51 AM
Personally I'm excited about these updates. I've been saving for a Mac since OSX first came out but other things (like house/family etc!) came first. Now I have the money and the updates are (almost!) just what I want. I say almost because I would have preferred a better discrete graphics card. The spec is perfect for me and I can afford either a 15" or 17". So a big smile from me. :)

TheNewDude
Apr 13, 2010, 11:52 AM
Damn these posts are updating faster than I can read....

Before i am done even reading one page worth of posts, 5 more pages show up!

mypins
Apr 13, 2010, 11:53 AM
I'm quite happy with these updates!

Just ordered the 2.66 i7 17" with 500GB/7200 HD...

I'd sell off my 2.4 Santa Rosa 15" MBP if I hadn't dropped it and put a minor dent in it a year ago. Guess I have 2 laptops now. :rolleyes:

I am leaning toward the same. This will be a big difference from what I have been using for 5 years (G4 15")! But are you planning on going with the 4 G memory or paying for the upgrade?

mcmlxix
Apr 13, 2010, 11:53 AM
http://www.batmancomic.info/gen/20100413064423_4bc47537cbc9b.jpg

...someone ought to email this to Steve...

guzhogi
Apr 13, 2010, 11:53 AM
Now if only MacRumors followed Robert's Rules of Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order), I would so motion to close debate on this already. More than 30 pages of comments seems a little excessive.

willdenow
Apr 13, 2010, 11:54 AM
A lot of people seem to be focusing on the price of the entry-level MBPs (and justifiably so - $1500 for a C2D is obscene). I also agree that this latest revision is somewhat lacking in features, particularly Blu-Ray. However, little or no attention has been paid to a rather important fact: the new high-end models with i7 absolutely whallop the competition right now from a pricing standpoint. All PC laptops I've found with i7 are utilizing the 1.6 or 1.7GHz processors, and these are priced comparably to the i7 15" MPB. But the MBP uses a 2.66GHz chip, which would probably jack up a comparable PC by at least $400-500. The thing is, no other manufacturer is currently offering these processors.

Also, was anyone really expecting USB 3.0? Intel doesn't support that on its roadmap until at least the end of 2011 (sigh) and Apple is slavishly devoted to Intel chipsets (double sigh).


yes, i was expecting usb 3.0 when i lay down more than two grand for a computer, i won't be buying a new one fior probably four or five years. i don't want the thing to be obsolete before i even get it out of the box. as for intel support, that's a red herring. apple has no problem adding components that intel chip sets don't/support. ALL pro laptops now comne with nvidia graphivs. and as for usb, there are now 2 (possibly 3) competing chips, one of which could easily have been incorporated for a modest price (these things retail as add on cards for about 50$. apple could have purchased cheaper versions in volume for use in their designs) when you make claims that your computers are "revolutionary," "insanely great," and "simply the best," dammit, they should be. the sad fact is, once they were, but haven't been in a very long time.

mcmlxix
Apr 13, 2010, 11:55 AM
I’m disappointed (though not surprised) that there’s no HDMI across the line, unless Apple has left undisclosed that they’re now outputting audio through the MDP.

Speculations for the lackluster (CPU wise) 13” MBP

Speculation 1: the smaller footprint of the 13” might have required a major redesigning of the internals and chassis and thereby upping the price. But I think it needs a redesign anyway. The two USB ports are too close together to make using them simultaneously difficult…like an iPod synch and a thumb drive.

Speculation 2: supply constraints.

Speculation 3: the lackluster change to the 13” MBP is calculated so as to steal less thunder from the iPad. Perhaps there will be a new MBP 13” along with the new MB in Sept-Oct…especially if numbers 1 and 2 were issues as well. I will wait until then. I want to get an iPhone first anyway.

DLovett
Apr 13, 2010, 11:58 AM
...someone ought to email this to Steve...

I sorta did, go back to page 30 to read his response.

rjett
Apr 13, 2010, 11:59 AM
$1799 WITH 256MB on the video card?!?!?!?! FTW!!!!!!

Come to daddy!!!!

THAT is what I was hoping for.... pro laptop on a KindredMac budget!

That is not a good deal.

compuguy1088
Apr 13, 2010, 11:59 AM
It makes me feel even better with my Late 2007 MacBook. :rolleyes:

Unless Apple decides to stop supporting the GMA X3100 to just run OS X.



Still going strong with my MBP 2.4 SR from 2007....minus the logic board having to be replaced....

JGowan
Apr 13, 2010, 11:59 AM
WOW!

13" Macbook Pro BOUGHT!!!

4GB and i5 in a 13" model for 1199? SOLD.

Fantastic update and was more than I was hoping for.It IS more that you hoped for and more than it actually is... you have the specs WRONG, friend... the 13-inch has the following configs:

13" MacBook Pro
- $1199: 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 320M, 4 GB RAM, 250 GB hard drive
- $1499: 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 320M, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB hard drive

CORE 2 DUO processors! If I were you, I would cancel immediately and rethink the 15-inch model.

inlovewithi
Apr 13, 2010, 12:00 PM
Personally I'm excited about these updates. I've been saving for a Mac since OSX first came out but other things (like house/family etc!) came first. Now I have the money and the updates are (almost!) just what I want. I say almost because I would have preferred a better discrete graphics card. The spec is perfect for me and I can afford either a 15" or 17". So a big smile from me. :)
Make sure you try OSX before you purchase, if you haven't. It could be disappointing going from one operating system to another. Just lots of little things not being where you're used to could get annoying. And then getting alternatives to programs you've been using for years.

butterfly0fdoom
Apr 13, 2010, 12:03 PM
Not true. I use my 13" for CS4 (and soon CS5), Logic Pro / MainStage, and in a pinch Aperture ("pinch" only from the display not being the best).

And, there are tens, maybe hundreds like me out there !!! :eek:

+1

For the 15" yes, which sucks a bit.

$100 more for a discrete chip? How does that suck?

compuguy1088
Apr 13, 2010, 12:03 PM
Ugh. Why not just upgrade the 13" now, its not like the i3 2.9GHz CPU is expensive... come on....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115222

IMO Apple should have upgraded ALL MBP's with i5 duals and put the i3 in the MB. I'm not understanding this 88MPH update.

Because we need that increase in order to achieve a speed to time travel :D :p

queshy
Apr 13, 2010, 12:03 PM
Ah, this happens every time. People get SO angry whenever Apple updates their products even though they've been whining for months about how it should be updated. What else do you want people?

Eidorian
Apr 13, 2010, 12:04 PM
Also not understanding this complaint. The GT 330M is best-in-class for performance to price ratio, and Optimus technology is going to make switching between Intel's ****** onboard chip and the NVIDIA chip a breeze.The 320M and 330M share the same GT216 based 48:16:8 core.

eazyc10
Apr 13, 2010, 12:05 PM
Ah, this happens every time. People get SO angry whenever Apple updates their products even though they've been whining for months about how it should be updated. What else do you want people?

Too true

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 12:05 PM
Still going strong with my MBP 2.4 SR from 2007....minus the logic board having to be replaced....

Exactly the same with me:)...just had the logic board replaced a few weeks ago but Apple covered it, so no complaints here. But seriously, my MBP a few months shy of being three years old and I'm still not drooling over anything new

Anonymouslives
Apr 13, 2010, 12:07 PM
Nothing groundbreaking here. I'll stick with my Unibody, 2.4 core 2 duo. I'll upgrade when they make a better improvement than this. Definitely NOT worth selling my current one for 1,100 and spending 700-900 more on this update. iPad, here I come.

Kuz
Apr 13, 2010, 12:07 PM
I'm rather surprised by the level of animosity from a lot of folks on here about this update. Personally, I was very happy with it and just got off the phone with the Apple Store to place an order for my first ever Mac - 15 inch, i7 with the high-res glossy widescreen. Very happy about it and eagerly looking forward to it arriving in the next few days.

This is a bit of a weird day for me since I grew up with a Dad who worked 30 years for IBM and I was a vehement Apple hater for a looong time... certainly back in the days when IBM was a desktop/laptop OEM in the 80's and 90's. We had every IBM PC you could imagine, so it feels odd about making the switch...

... but not SO odd that it stopped me, obviously. Now I hope I can contribute something a little more meaningful here going forward. :cool:

jwloader
Apr 13, 2010, 12:07 PM
[QUOTE=shervieux;9653113]Maybe with these new machines out, Apple will update their pro apps for the hyper-threading and multiple CPU's.... Also what version of OS X are you running?

I'm on 10.6.3 with the latest updates for all my pro apps - it's the code base for Logic and Final Cut etc. which needs rewriting to better support hyper-threading and multiple CPUs, you're right.


<snip>
I also talked to Adobe about Premier in the CS# versions (seeing if it would be worth shelling out over $1,000), they said they took out some of the optimizing and features; not because of Apple machine capability; but more because they did not want to support 2 versions long term and wanted to concentrate more on Windows users. They said eventually they wanted one code set to maintain, and since the world works on Windows - that was their target.

So see, Adobe admitted to me they were not interested in properly performing Apple products. Let's not blame Apple here (and I am not 100% of a fanboi, I still use some Windows apps); blame the 3rd party software makers for crippling apps.
<snip>

When I spoke to Apple support about the terrible performance of the pro apps on my Mac Pro they admitted that, until the code is rewritten, performance isn't going to get any better. It just feels like they've taken their eye off an important subset of Mac / Pro apps users. Anyway, a full evaluation of CS5 on both platforms will make my mind up about whether to go back over to Windows!

Mystikal
Apr 13, 2010, 12:08 PM
Hello first macbook :)

JGowan
Apr 13, 2010, 12:09 PM
Don't in the slightest bit regret getting my MBP in December.

Hope it was worth the wait for those of you that have.Absolutely. My last new laptop was March 2003 ("World's First 17-inch Laptop") with the 17" PowerBook G4. I've been borrowing my wife's uni-body MBP (2008) for the past 6 months as I just can't stand the terrible speed and battery life that mine has.

I'll be getting mine soon. Wish I could justify the 512GB SSD -- even with my wife's education discount, the $1200 is just can't be justified.

Anyhoo -- it looks it'll be a 15-inch for me. Financially, the 17-inch is fine, but after owning that big monster for so long, I think the 15-inch is the sweet spot of power and portability. The biggest one is just too heavy even though it is a beauty to behold.

I love it when Apple gets in the mood to kick total ass for an entire month. iPad wifi release, OS 4 preview, new MBPs, iPad 3G release. They are really on a roll.Absolutely -- very impressive. New iPhones will come out in about 60-90 days. Mac Pros will probably come out in May when Adobe CS 5 comes out. New iPods will come out in Late August or September -- THEY ARE KICKING ARSE!!!

Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 2010, 12:09 PM
Exactly the same with me:)...just had the logic board replaced a few weeks ago but Apple covered it, so no complaints here. But seriously, my MBP a few months shy of being three years old and I'm still not drooling over anything new

You have officially NOT fallen into the new gadget hype. I bought my Penryn MBP right when it was updated, and have no desire for a new one yet. The longer I wait, the better the machines get, and the more choices I have for an update.

By the time I am looking for a replacement, I'll be happy to buy refurbished.

canucksfan88
Apr 13, 2010, 12:10 PM
doesn't moores law say that the speed of computers (general) will double every 16 months...

why the heck did they raise prices in canada (coupled with the near par of the Canadian dollar)

that is my only complaint. speed wise, im alright with the C2D in the 13", i really dont need all that power. and really, if you are going to be doing something that requires an i5/i7, you shouldn't really be getting the 13" model.

jeff1977
Apr 13, 2010, 12:12 PM
Uh... every video producer. Uh... every audio studio that does audio for video. Uh... every wedding videographer. Uh... everyone having anything to do with video, period. All have been dealing with clients screaming for Blu-ray for THREE YEARS now.

This insane suicidal aversion to providing true cutting-edge workstations will kill Apple.

And good riddance.

:apple:

+1
Tons of people still use optical and being able to back up 50gb at a time onto very, very reliable media (discs are unaffected by the many things that cause hard drive failures) would be of great use to a lot of Pro customers. And since I stopped buying DVDs and only buy BDs last year, it would be nice to be able to pop one in on a flight. I really think Blu Ray WRITING as, at least, an option is a no brainer. Also, I want some form of BD Studio Pro in Final Cut Studio 4, damnit!

Eidorian
Apr 13, 2010, 12:13 PM
You have officially NOT fallen into the new gadget hype. I bought my Penryn MBP right when it was updated, and have no desire for a new one yet. The longer I wait, the better the machines get, and the more choices I have for an update.

By the time I am looking for a replacement, I'll be happy to buy refurbished.I'll probably be getting a refurbished 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro 13" (Early 2010) as a replacement to my Late 2007 Macbook.

It'll more than like be $999 then. :D

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 12:14 PM
You have officially NOT fallen into the new gadget hype. I bought my Penryn MBP right when it was updated, and have no desire for a new one yet. The longer I wait, the better the machines get, and the more choices I have for an update.

By the time I am looking for a replacement, I'll be happy to buy refurbished.

Haha and the more money we can save up :)...Years ago when I bought my iMac, the later updates had me wanting a new one pretty quick and I was afraid the same thing would happen when I bought the MBP...but so far I'm still content. Don't get me wrong, the new MBP's are very nice computers. But as far as specs, they're not THAT much diff than my SR MBP. At least not enough for me to warrent spending that much money for the upgrade.

tbrinkma
Apr 13, 2010, 12:15 PM
Ok, so let me see if I have this straight...

All their screens used to be non-glossy, then they made them all glossy, and now they're charging you $150 if you want to go back to what they all previously used to begin with.

Apple is quickly becoming the new Microsoft. :mad:

Let me explain some basic economics to you.
Back when all their screens were non-glossy, *all* laptop screens were non-glossy. Then the various win-box manufacturers started using glossy screens and promoting how vivid they were, and how much better the contrast was. Somewhere around here, glossy screens became a BTO option on MacBooks (around $50-$100 as I recall, depending upon exactly when).

Over time, the display manufacturers switched more and more of their production lines over to the glossy displays. As this progressed, glossy screens became more and more common until people were complaining that you had to pay extra for a glossy screen on Macs. At some point, the glossy screens became the default option everywhere (at which point people started to complain that they couldn't get a non-glossy screen on Macs, go figure). At this point, there is so little demand for non-glossy screens, and correspondingly little supply, so the prices have gone up because they're essentially considered a 'specialty' item. There's just barely enough demand for non-glossy screens to justify making them any more, and not nearly enough to make the same savings on production scale that they used to.

That's why a non-glossy screen is more expensive now, even though a glossy screen *used* to be more expensive.

(But then, I suppose you were just complaining for the sake of being heard to whine, so I don't expect you to actually listen.)

Padraig
Apr 13, 2010, 12:15 PM
doesn't moores law say that the speed of computers (general) will double every 16 months...


No, it's the number of transistors every two years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law


As for the updates... No blu-ray, no hdmi out, no sale.

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 12:17 PM
Hey everybody, I'm curious on the difference between the 2.4Ghz Core i5 15" MBP and the 2.53Ghz Core i5 15" MBP? I'm trying to save as much money as possible, at first i looked into the 2.53Ghz expecting that it would be like the older line up, where the slightly more expensive 15" would have another GPU. But from what I see, the lowest 15" model (2.4Ghz) has exactly the same hardware as the 2.53Ghz? Just making sure I'm seeing it right. Because saving a couple hundred bucks for a difference of 2.4ghz - 2.53ghz seems great!

moores2525
Apr 13, 2010, 12:18 PM
You have officially NOT fallen into the new gadget hype. I bought my Penryn MBP right when it was updated, and have no desire for a new one yet. The longer I wait, the better the machines get, and the more choices I have for an update.

By the time I am looking for a replacement, I'll be happy to buy refurbished.

+1

I bought a 2007 Penryn MBP second-hand on E-Bay, worked a treat and I've had it for 2 and a half years. Had the logic board replaced last July free by Apple when the display died and just added a new hard drive and all is good. Needs a new battery but can live with it for now.

Every update I get the great feeling that I'm not missing anything.

canucksfan88
Apr 13, 2010, 12:19 PM
No, it's the number of transistors every two years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law


As for the updates... No blu-ray, no hdmi out, no sale.

mybad about the 2 years. it is generally 18 months now

but i always assumed and was taught # of transistors directly related to speed

gtokidd
Apr 13, 2010, 12:20 PM
Can someone please help me understand why only 256 MB on the video card, and just how bad this is for gaming as compared to 1024 MB?
Thanks!

stodge
Apr 13, 2010, 12:24 PM
Make sure you try OSX before you purchase, if you haven't. It could be disappointing going from one operating system to another. Just lots of little things not being where you're used to could get annoying. And then getting alternatives to programs you've been using for years.


Good points - thanks. I've been using Windows since v1 and Linux since, oh, I don't remember. So I've been planning this for a long time and I know what apps I can and can't replace. But thanks for reminding me. Primarily the laptop will be for development and garageband, as well as the usual browsing/email etc.

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 12:24 PM
+1

I bought a 2007 Penryn MBP second-hand on E-Bay, worked a treat and I've had it for 2 and a half years. Had the logic board replaced last July free by Apple when the display died and just added a new hard drive and all is good. Needs a new battery but can live with it for now.

Every update I get the great feeling that I'm not missing anything.

Same here... everytime I hear the MBP is updated in anyway.. "Ah crap, I'm either going to be jealous or broke."....but then when I go look at the new ones I'm like "Oh ok.. Shew"

Cheungsth
Apr 13, 2010, 12:26 PM
Vote for most ridiculous statement I have ever heard on Macrumors!

I think he probably meant on a 13 screen or 15 screen. But to be fair, Bluway is NOT a must.

Cheungsth
Apr 13, 2010, 12:28 PM
Nothing groundbreaking here. I'll stick with my Unibody, 2.4 core 2 duo. I'll upgrade when they make a better improvement than this. Definitely NOT worth selling my current one for 1,100 and spending 700-900 more on this update. iPad, here I come.

I played with the iPad in NY. God, no multi-task is a huge letdown. don't put too much expectation there.

rikers_mailbox
Apr 13, 2010, 12:30 PM
well.. like everyone else I'm sorta bummed the 13" doesn't get i5. But I'm still getting one.

I've been waiting for this MBP update, compounded by the fact that my 12" PowerBook started kernel panic'ing just last week (i think the PSU is crapping out).

1.33 GHz 12" PowerBook --> 13" MBP will be quite an upgrade! And I'm VERY happy that my 12" lasted more than 6 years. It has served me well.

ouimetnick
Apr 13, 2010, 12:31 PM
The $1499 Macbook Pro 13 inch seems like a rip off. 266 MHz more nad a slightly larger harddrive for $300 more than the base MacBook Pro?

veoseo
Apr 13, 2010, 12:32 PM
Love this forum - anyone in the UK interested in offloading their existing MBP please PM me - I am not really keen on upgrading to the latest & greatest

RMXO
Apr 13, 2010, 12:32 PM
hrmm no usb3 and no i7 on the 17inch version :/

you're not looking hard enough. the i7 on the 17" are optional aka BTO.

InfoSecmgr
Apr 13, 2010, 12:35 PM
This update is not good enough for me.

I'll wait for WWDC. Hopefully, they will update again in 3 months. I also want to see it ships with iLife 10 and iWork 10.

Ridiculous comment. Come on people. You bi...and moan for the i5's and i7's to come out, then when it does you cry like friggin' baby's about one tiny thing you don't like about them. Get over yourselves.

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 12:38 PM
Can anyone please distinguish the DIFFERENCE between the 2.4Ghz and 2.53Ghz 15" MBP's?? I'm about to click "add to cart" but i wanna know if im making the right choice! lol

Jaro65
Apr 13, 2010, 12:38 PM
What a great refresh! Love the new high-res screen on the 15" MBP.

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 12:39 PM
Ridiculous comment. Come on people. You bi...and moan for the i5's and i7's to come out, then when it does you cry like friggin' baby's about one tiny thing you don't like about them. Get over yourselves.

I think some were forgetting that all this was supposed to be was basically a performance boost... not a whole new revamped MBP

Jason Beck
Apr 13, 2010, 12:40 PM
Can someone please help me understand why only 256 MB on the video card, and just how bad this is for gaming as compared to 1024 MB?
Thanks!

It's fine for most games in mid to high settings.
If you want a beast of a gaming machine then don't get a Mac. Get an Xbox.

dainja
Apr 13, 2010, 12:40 PM
The Core i7 that the Macbook Pro uses is NOTHING special, as it's only a very fast dual core. It's basically a quicker Core i5. Honestly, I don't know if I'd be willing to spend an extra $300, the only plus is that you get 512MB video memory and a slightly fast processor. That's your call.

If it was my money, I'd buy a Dell or an ASUS at this point for around $1000, and get a 14" or 15" notebook with a quad core Core i7 processor, 4GB DDR3, 500GB 7200rpm hard drive, and 1GB dedicated video (ATI 5450/5470 for the Dell and ATI 5730 for the ASUS).

I could not justify a Macbook Pro, especially if I would be using it mostly for Windows 7.

Have you owned a Macbook Pro and an ASUS?

I have. It's like night and day. ASUS are complete garbage. Horrible build quality, incredibly poor design, bad keyboard, bad trackpad, bad screen, runs hot, etc.

Basically, complete garbage. The build quality on a mac is way better, and you get dozens of small things that go a long way (magsafe power, bigger glass trackpad that doesnt react when youre just typing, multi touch gestures, small power supply, mcuh thinner body, much more solid body, automatic screen dimming/laptop dimming, long battery life, etc.

It's not even in the same league whether the specs match up for not.

JohnWyatt
Apr 13, 2010, 12:41 PM
Well, of course you can beat 10h battery life. This Sony VAIO X (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644667494)offers 14hours (and is much much lighter)

wow, i had no idea. i just hate pc's so much i dont even bother to really look anymore. my hp is total s***
i was suppose to get 5 on my hp, i get 2. its horrible.

edit*
i just looked at the specs some more. i wouldnt buy that thing if you paid me.

gtokidd
Apr 13, 2010, 12:43 PM
It's fine for most games in mid to high settings.
If you want a beast of a gaming machine then don't get a Mac. Get an Xbox.

Thank you. I do have an Xbox, and this computer is for work, but I like to game a little at lunch if I can. I still don't understand why only 256 Mb on the card though.

Jakeoster
Apr 13, 2010, 12:44 PM
It's not good enough!!!!!!!!!1!1!11!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!11!11111!!! Where in the hell is the built in pico projectors that Apple patented the other day?!?!??! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrggggh.






/sarcasm

mcmlxix
Apr 13, 2010, 12:45 PM
I sorta did, go back to page 30 to read his response.

Anyway, it's impressive that a major CEO would respond to public emails in such a timely fashion...if at all. The cynic in me suspects some of the responses to standard questions come from some PR flack with standard answers.

oldwatery
Apr 13, 2010, 12:48 PM
It is so so sad.

I would have been an first-time Mac buyer, I have waited since November for a Macbook Pro 13" Update and now this ****** crap.

I am very disappointed, I have waited too long and I need a new laptop. Apple forces me now to buy a PC because I can't wait for another update circle. What a ********** crappy company. Lost a new customer right now!

Sweet...maybe we won't have to listen to your stupid crap.

firsttimemac
Apr 13, 2010, 12:49 PM
The $1499 Macbook Pro 13 inch seems like a rip off. 266 MHz more nad a slightly larger harddrive for $300 more than the base MacBook Pro?

Exactly my point.
What no one seems to answer is how can apple expect to sell any top end mbp like this. Its just not gonna happen.
Ds that mean we will see another refresh soon?

vijay007
Apr 13, 2010, 12:50 PM
I would assume that if the display resolution on the 15" is bumped to 1680-by-1050, it will eat up battery faster compared to the standard 1440-by-900 display.

Can someone confirm this?

firsttimemac
Apr 13, 2010, 12:50 PM
Ah, this happens every time. People get SO angry whenever Apple updates their products even though they've been whining for months about how it should be updated. What else do you want people?

Something better than a 6% C2D bump and another integrated graphics.
i used to hear about it, but now i have seen this while waiting for this update. People will literally take anything apple throws at them.

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 12:51 PM
Well, of course you can beat 10h battery life. This Sony VAIO X (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644667494)offers 14hours (and is much much lighter)

Wow 14hrs battery life, 1.6 lbs and around a half inch thick? Thats awesome.. too bad it runs Windows

ryero
Apr 13, 2010, 12:54 PM
anyone know what screens the new 13" use?

Eidorian
Apr 13, 2010, 12:55 PM
anyone know what screens the new 13" use?They're more than like still TN panels.

justperry
Apr 13, 2010, 12:56 PM
Any benchmarks for the GeForce?

nVidia and ATI's numbering system are the most complex they've ever been.

So much easier back in the days of Voodoo and TNT!

You forgot one, Intel:p

chewietobbacca
Apr 13, 2010, 12:56 PM
Have you owned a Macbook Pro and an ASUS?

I have. It's like night and day. ASUS are complete garbage. Horrible build quality, incredibly poor design, bad keyboard, bad trackpad, bad screen, runs hot, etc.

Basically, complete garbage. The build quality on a mac is way better, and you get dozens of small things that go a long way (magsafe power, bigger glass trackpad that doesnt react when youre just typing, multi touch gestures, small power supply, mcuh thinner body, much more solid body, automatic screen dimming/laptop dimming, long battery life, etc.

It's not even in the same league whether the specs match up for not.

That's funny, because we've seen studies out there that have put ASUS at higher reliability than even Apple

Anywho, the 13" is dissappointing, but the other updates were in line with expectations

junko
Apr 13, 2010, 12:56 PM
Really dissapointed with this update. The 13" Pro model definately does not feel "pro".

Stuck deciding now between the last gen 13" and new one. Is the 320m a significant upgrade from the 9400m?

mlukens
Apr 13, 2010, 12:57 PM
Just bought a 13" Macbook Pro last week, won't even here here until tomorrow! LOL owell, I don't think I will hassle with the return, plus the price difference would probably still be $115 or so after the tax and cost difference.


It's mostly for my fiance anyway, she just uses it for Facebook and Word.

shervieux
Apr 13, 2010, 12:57 PM
For work, I run Win 7 Enterprise [same as ultimate really] (64 bit) on a Dell Optiplex 755. Intel Core Duo 2.33 (dual core) with 4.00 gb ram (only 3.87 is usable). Has a 150gb hard drive with a raid 1.

My backups won't work (totally filed up a 1 tb drive in 2 days), I have occassional lock ups, CPU goes to 100% when only running office and the virus scanner kicks is. I barely have anything installed and shut down the virtual PC's when not in use (hogs a way to much resources).

For Home (and sometimes work when the Dell acts up) I use a 2008 white macbook 2.4 ghz with 2gb of ram. my fans ever rarely kick in, now that I removed parallels and Windows, performs like brand new. I have a way lot more and use a way lot more simultaneously on my macbook than I do on Windows. Not a problem in 2 years.

I also own a Lenovo X61T Tablet with Vista Home Premium. 1.83 ghz with 3 gb ram - slow as molasses, a lot slower than my Dell XPS 1.83 ghz with 2gb ram that died 2 years ago (just after the warrenty ran out - internally cracked display, could not even buy a replacement for it; Dell could not find one).

Personally I think Apple is designed in a way that you really get your money's worth in terms of lifespan and overall usage. Yeah, I thought the same when I switched to Apple (expensive and you have to get used to a new OS). Well, in terms of usage, I have gotten more use and am a lot happier with my macbook. an upgrade would be nice, but now that I cleaned off windows, parallels, etc. My machine runs like new and I gained 115gb on the hard drive.

I also ran into someone at Starbucks the other day. He is still using is 2005 Powerbook for most stuff. He was not thinking of upgrading for another year.

Yeah, I talk to a lot of Windows and Apple users when I am out and about. Most that said they tried or switched to Apple would not go back. Also, the lack of blu-ray really did not concern them much. They had Windows PC's with blu-ray and found that they ran into a couple issues with rendering blu-ray movies that would not play on a blu-ray player. And also they ran into trouble trying to use the full storage capability (underwrite errors). Blu-ray may not be there yet. Also here in NC, there are still only 1 or 2 blu-ray players on display at any given time in the stores, and very few blu-ray movies out.

From what I am hearing, while the quality may be better for blu-ray, they still can't justify the costs. Also, tell me why when I go into a store, there are no internal or external blu-ray drives? Most are still CD-RW or DVD-RW D/L +- or multi-format; non support blu-ray. Also a lot of computer makers, blu-ray is BTO option, and not standard on a lot of PC's.

So when the rest of the world adopts blu-ray as mainstream; then I will complain about the lack of blu-ray on Apple computers.

Same with USB 3.0 and Wireless N - None are 100% mainstream yet.

alent1234
Apr 13, 2010, 12:58 PM
Ridiculous comment. Come on people. You bi...and moan for the i5's and i7's to come out, then when it does you cry like friggin' baby's about one tiny thing you don't like about them. Get over yourselves.

i've been following tech for almost 20 years and i can't remember the last time a new computer product cost more than the last generation it replaced. Apple innovated again.

oldwatery
Apr 13, 2010, 12:59 PM
Ridiculous comment. Come on people. You bi...and moan for the i5's and i7's to come out, then when it does you cry like friggin' baby's about one tiny thing you don't like about them. Get over yourselves.

Yes like over 50% on this thread.
What is with people that they think a company is gonna build a computer just for them! I want this....no I want that...no I want what he has.
Bloody hell what a bunch of cry babies.
These are good, not great, upgrades. They move the bar in many ways while maintaining a base that has not gotten old or outdated when compared to any other machines out there.
You say you want a revolution every 6 months.....people get real.
If you had a genuine need for the speed and performance of these new machines you would be happy. They are still the best laptops on the market taking all things into consideration.
Enough pity party crap already.

oldwatery
Apr 13, 2010, 01:02 PM
i've been following tech for almost 20 years and i can't remember the last time a new computer product cost more than the last generation it replaced. Apple innovated again.

What:confused:
So by your definition a MacBook should now cost minus $100!!!!!
You might have been "following tech" for 20 years but you sure have zero understanding of it.
Dumbest post so far :rolleyes:

ryero
Apr 13, 2010, 01:03 PM
They're more than like still TN panels.

I guess I should have been a little more specific.
model numbers?
like 9CBD, 9CC2?

i remember there was a huge hassle with the mid-2009 ones

Eidorian
Apr 13, 2010, 01:03 PM
I guess I should have been a little more specific.
model numbers?
like 9CBD, 9CC2?

i remember there was a huge hassle with the mid-2009 onesPlease don't remind me. :eek:

Boostin
Apr 13, 2010, 01:07 PM
It is so so sad.

I would have been an first-time Mac buyer, I have waited since November for a Macbook Pro 13" Update and now this ****** crap.

I am very disappointed, I have waited too long and I need a new laptop. Apple forces me now to buy a PC because I can't wait for another update circle. What a ********** crappy company. Lost a new customer right now!

Wait, and you think Apple cares about you? lol. They care less about you then I do, and thats saying a lot. Apple does not making MBP's for the "relatively" tech savvy. They make them for the masses. And the masses could care less about a quad-core, blue-ray, etc, etc, etc. Get a grip. Try and understand how and why Apple does what they do. Maybe then you'll stop making dumbass remarks. O, and have fun with your plastic, cheap, virus-prone, laggy, glitchy, crashing boring windows laptop. And thats without even looking at the design of almost ANY windows laptop out there.

alent1234
Apr 13, 2010, 01:07 PM
What:confused:
So by your definition a MacBook should now cost minus $100!!!!!
You might have been "following tech" for 20 years but you sure have zero understanding of it.
Dumbest post so far :rolleyes:


i remember when an average Dell cost $5000. and i know someone who bought a Dell laptop in 1998 for $3000 when laptops were still expensive. every time a new model computer comes out it's always cheaper, faster, more memory, more features built in. our 64 bit servers at work were like $30,000 each a few years ago with Xeon 5300's. the new Xeon 5600 based servers with twice the memory and a ton of new features are half the price. And HP actually makes money on every server they sell and the build quality is very good

Apple raised the price of the 15" MBP by $100 and the only thing faster is a new CPU. new graphics chip, but nvidia probably told apple that they aren't going to make anymore 9400's

gtokidd
Apr 13, 2010, 01:07 PM
What:confused:
So by your definition a MacBook should now cost minus $100!!!!!
You might have been "following tech" for 20 years but you sure have zero understanding of it.
Dumbest post so far :rolleyes:

The $2500 PowerBook 100 was released with the other first-generation PowerBooks in October 1991. The PB 100 was the low-end version, for mobile Mac users with a budget.

Boostin
Apr 13, 2010, 01:08 PM
Im interested in buying a giant laser that kills all stupid people. Anyone have one for sale?

ALUOp
Apr 13, 2010, 01:08 PM
Wow 14hrs battery life, 1.6 lbs and around a half inch thick? Thats awesome.. too bad it runs Windows

That VAIO is a netbook using Atom, man.
Don't listen to him.

But still, I won't buy another Mac for the near future.
When I bought my MBP 4 years ago, there weren't other alternatives, spec-wise.
Apple used to use the latest parts from Intel, even before they were available to other manufacturers.
This time Apple was so late. HP, Dell and others have had i5/i7 since last year.
Also, things used to be Apple's unique features like the lit keyboard, metal body, thinness, etc can now be found on PC notebooks.
More important, while the spec difference diminishs, the price difference has gone up quite a lot. In the last few years, the price of PC notebooks just went down so much that the difference between similar spec'ed PC and Mac is just too big now for me to consider buying another Mac.

justperry
Apr 13, 2010, 01:09 PM
Who the hell uses optical mediums anymore...?

Exactly:)

The Captain
Apr 13, 2010, 01:09 PM
+1
Tons of people still use optical and being able to back up 50gb at a time onto very, very reliable media (discs are unaffected by the many things that cause hard drive failures) would be of great use to a lot of Pro customers. And since I stopped buying DVDs and only buy BDs last year, it would be nice to be able to pop one in on a flight. I really think Blu Ray WRITING as, at least, an option is a no brainer. Also, I want some form of BD Studio Pro in Final Cut Studio 4, damnit!

I think that's what a lot of confrontation on this thread stems from (not withstanding the fanboys) the expectation that these are supposed to be the "Pro" models. With Apple that has traditionally been the photo, graphics, and video fields and they have all been screaming for years for Blue Ray to deal with the ever increasing amounts of data, and the long term unreliability of hard drives (try shipping a hard drive of footage to a client and NOT be nervous about it). For me though the biggest issue is the lack of connectivity. No USB does not count. We need more Firewire, or eSata, but at the least it would have been nice to have the pci slot back on the 15's. I have an old (3-4 years now?) Core Duo that is more practical in the field than the new 15's since the express slot allows me to read panasonic cards straight from the cameras, or have an extra FW or eSata port. Now sure, I just don't update (as the fanboys will shout), but it seems a trade off that shouldn't have to be made. Apple's "pro" computers used to solve problems, now they just dance around them.

lilo777
Apr 13, 2010, 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alent1234
i've been following tech for almost 20 years and i can't remember the last time a new computer product cost more than the last generation it replaced. Apple innovated again.

What:confused:
So by your definition a MacBook should now cost minus $100!!!!!
You might have been "following tech" for 20 years but you sure have zero understanding of it.
Dumbest post so far :rolleyes:

You are simply either too young or too dumb to understand what he is talking about.

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 01:11 PM
for the love of mac gods! can someone PLEASE justify the difference between the 2.4ghz and 2.53ghz 15" macbook pros! 3rd time posting and still no responses! is the Ghz the only difference between them??? thanks in advance!

gtokidd
Apr 13, 2010, 01:13 PM
for the love of mac gods! can someone PLEASE justify the difference between the 2.4ghz and 2.53ghz 15" macbook pros! 3rd time posting and still no responses! is the Ghz the only difference between them??? thanks in advance!

IMHO the 2.53 and larger hard drive are not worth the $200.

alent1234
Apr 13, 2010, 01:14 PM
for the love of mac gods! can someone PLEASE justify the difference between the 2.4ghz and 2.53ghz 15" macbook pros! 3rd time posting and still no responses! is the Ghz the only difference between them??? thanks in advance!


slightly faster CPU and larger hard drive

shervieux
Apr 13, 2010, 01:14 PM
Yes like over 50% on this thread.
What is with people that they think a company is gonna build a computer just for them! I want this....no I want that...no I want what he has.
Bloody hell what a bunch of cry babies.
These are good, not great, upgrades. They move the bar in many ways while maintaining a base that has not gotten old or outdated when compared to any other machines out there.
You say you want a revolution every 6 months.....people get real.
If you had a genuine need for the speed and performance of these new machines you would be happy. They are still the best laptops on the market taking all things into consideration.
Enough pity party crap already.

Amen. Apple, like any other computer company builds mainstream computers they think the consumer wants that will run all or most of the software for the platform (OS) of the companies' choice. If you want a special machine, then go to TigerDirect, NewEgg, or some other place and buy the parts and buld the machine yourself. I used to build (and repair) custom machines for myself and others. It was overkill what people wanted in a machine for what they used them for. I got out of the business when people started getting rediulous in specs and I could not buy the parts locally anymore (CompUsa went out of business). Most part stores closed up shop, since we live in a throw-away society that wants off-the-shelf products for cheap.

#1 - you get what you pay for.
#2 - no company is going to do a total BTO, if they do - you will pay a fortune
#3 - even with BTO options, if you speak to a knowledgable tech - some will tell you what you want is overkill, or they just don't suggest it.

#4 - also we are seeing a shift in computing; more mobile, very few people are tied to a desk 24 X 7. the cloud is coming (which I am not 100% in agreement with - security issues for personal information); but with that in mind, the power will be placed on the webservers at a data center rather than a PC running a browser. And with these tablet computers (ipad for one) the apps are almost if not as powerful as desktop apps (in terms of features and user needs); but are much less CPU and memory hungry. PLus the size of the application (on your drive) is much smaller.

We do not need real powerful machines unless you are doing video editing, running a webserver, development, or runing a database (like filemaker, MS SQL Server, etc). What we really need is for software companies and developers to get their act together, optimize and de-bloat the codeset. I was looking at a Python script written by a co-worker. What he did in 3 lines of code, took me 7 lines on an older version of Python.

the programming languages are being optimized and the tools are out there, we just need the developers and the software companies to rework their software to run more efficiently.

justperry
Apr 13, 2010, 01:15 PM
Nice. So nearly 30% faster, higher resolution screen AND better battery life :)

BTW, here's a nice bit from that link for those who would miss it otherwise



Which probably means it can do Flash at only 95% :D

LMFAO:D
Steve was/is right,Dump Flash NOW:)

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 01:16 PM
But still, I won't buy another Mac for the near future.
When I bought my MBP 4 years ago, there weren't other alternatives, spec-wise.
Apple used to use the latest parts from Intel, even before they were available to other manufacturers.
This time Apple was so late. HP, Dell and others have had i5/i7 since last year.
Also, things used to be Apple's unique features like the lit keyboard, metal body, thinness, etc can now be found on PC notebooks.
More important, while the spec difference diminishs, the price difference has gone up quite a lot. In the last few years, the price of PC notebooks just went down so much that the difference between similar spec'ed PC and Mac is just too big now for me to consider buying another Mac.

Well said, and I agree. You can get PC laptops with the same specs (or better) for a much cheaper price. I understand that at the end of the day, those laptops still run Windows, so I wouldn't want them.. but still it just kind of aggrevates me. If I were to buy a new MBP for around $2K, I basically want to have the baddest, most awesome laptop around. A friends 1 year old Sony or whatever shouldn't compare. Maybe that's an extreme example, but you all get what I mean. You can't overlook Apple's hardware design either though, which also plays into the price.

Eric S.
Apr 13, 2010, 01:17 PM
Just so everyone knows - The Intel i7 processor doesn't mean it's a quad core CPU..

Right. Core i7 is nothing but a brand name. Thinking it implies 4 cores is like thinking a Ford must have 8 cylinders.

There is no mobile i3 processor, so you couldn't possibly get a 13" with an i3 processor. The lowest mobile iSomething processor is the i5-520 which is used in some 15" MBPs.

There's an Arrandale Core i3; i3-350M and 330M.

ready2switch
Apr 13, 2010, 01:20 PM
If you check the specs on the processors, the i7-720M and i7-820M (the two quad-core mobile versions excluding the extreme line) do not support Intel HD Graphics. This, regardless of heat issues and battery life, would exclude them from the MBP as it would negate the automatic graphics switching feature.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm

And upon further research, it appears the extreme edition (i7-920XM) does not support Intel HD Graphics either.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7ee/mobile/specifications.htm

So it looks like the blame is on Intel for now.

chrispholt
Apr 13, 2010, 01:20 PM
Lets all hope (A lot) it was bloody typo.....
Haha I can wish..

lilo777
Apr 13, 2010, 01:21 PM
Amen. Apple, like any other computer company builds mainstream computers they think the consumer wants that will run all or most of the software for the platform (OS) of the companies' choice. If you want a special machine, then go to TigerDirect, NewEgg, or some other place and buy the parts and buld the machine yourself. I used to build (and repair) custom machines for myself and others. It was overkill what people wanted in a machine for what they used them for. I got out of the business when people started getting rediulous in specs and I could not buy the parts locally anymore (CompUsa went out of business). Most part stores closed up shop, since we live in a throw-away society that wants off-the-shelf products for cheap.

#1 - you get what you pay for.
#2 - no company is going to do a total BTO, if they do - you will pay a fortune
#3 - even with BTO options, if you speak to a knowledgable tech - some will tell you what you want is overkill, or they just don't suggest it.

#4 - also we are seeing a shift in computing; more mobile, very few people are tied to a desk 24 X 7. the cloud is coming (which I am not 100% in agreement with - security issues for personal information); but with that in mind, the power will be placed on the webservers at a data center rather than a PC running a browser. And with these tablet computers (ipad for one) the apps are almost if not as powerful as desktop apps (in terms of features and user needs); but are much less CPU and memory hungry. PLus the size of the application (on your drive) is much smaller.

We do not need real powerful machines unless you are doing video editing, running a webserver, development, or runing a database (like filemaker, MS SQL Server, etc). What we really need is for software companies and developers to get their act together, optimize and de-bloat the codeset. I was looking at a Python script written by a co-worker. What he did in 3 lines of code, took me 7 lines on an older version of Python.

the programming languages are being optimized and the tools are out there, we just need the developers and the software companies to rework their software to run more efficiently.

I am not sure where you observed this. If anything, there is more telecommute nowadays.

beginnersview
Apr 13, 2010, 01:21 PM
Yeah. I really find the Macbook updates to be gradual enough that a 4 or even 5 year timeframe for replacing one is just about right.
...With Macbooks it's just a little faster here a bit quicker there...nice, but nothing worth worrying over too much.
I bought a laptop last year about 3 months before the update. Once the new ones came I looked at them and said "well, that'd have been nice, but it's no big deal." Seriously, it really didn't matter to me.

Good points.

The MacBook (and iMac and Mac Mini) updates have been generally nice but not monumental these last few years.

On the one hand, as a tech geek, I wish Apple would push more of the hot new technology into their Macs. And some of it does get in there.
On the other hand, it is sad (to me) that the PC notebook vendors do seem to be getting higher-end hardware out there.
On the other hand (third-hand?), since I don't do high-end photoshopping or video munging, the hardware seems quite capable (if pricey) for my own uses.

I bought a Mac Mini end of last year (Oct 2009 model) to replace my iMac G5 which gave up the ghost a while before that. It's quite a decent performer. And now that I upgraded it with a 7200rpm HD, it's definitely a good performer. All within my (sadly) smaller hardware budget ;)

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 01:22 PM
IMHO the 2.53 and larger hard drive are not worth the $200.

slightly faster CPU and larger hard drive

Thanks! So as for the graphics etc, its all the same? 2.4ghz is where im heading then ;)

Eric S.
Apr 13, 2010, 01:29 PM
During the ipad discussion I mentioned that the ipad was going to be a MacAir without a lid

And without OS X of course.

just a question, can someone tell me the difference between a c2d and an i5 or i7 processor?

Wikipedia is your friend.

Mpm277
Apr 13, 2010, 01:32 PM
I thought Apple is supposed to be leading innovation? Seems with the mac line they've basically just been blending in with everybody minus the trackpad and battery life. OSX still trumps anything tho.

apple101
Apr 13, 2010, 01:32 PM
Is it just me or did they raise the price of the first 15 inch MacBook Pro? I thought it used to be $1599 when they dropped the prices in June 2009. Correct me if I'm wrong. Plus I think they added a new $2,199.00 model.

Hackint0sh
Apr 13, 2010, 01:32 PM
Not true. I use my 13" for CS4 (and soon CS5), Logic Pro / MainStage, and in a pinch Aperture ("pinch" only from the display not being the best).

And, there are tens, maybe hundreds like me out there !!! :eek:

+1

I use mine for Aperture, Logic, and Photoshop.

jcque
Apr 13, 2010, 01:34 PM
Update of shi*** :(:(

I am still waiting to WWDC

pooprscooper
Apr 13, 2010, 01:37 PM
Since some of you are blind and either think the 13" has an i5 or the 17" doesn't have an i7, look below:
Intel® Core™ i5-520M Processor (3M Cache, 2.40 GHz) (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47341)
Intel® Core™ i7-620M Processor (4M Cache, 2.66 GHz) (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43560)

http://i44.tinypic.com/bdmvti.png

beginnersview
Apr 13, 2010, 01:38 PM
Exactly my point.
What no one seems to answer is how can apple expect to sell any top end mbp like this. Its just not gonna happen.
Ds that mean we will see another refresh soon?

The value in the Mac models is usually (though not always) in their base to mid models within each product range.

A rule of thumb within the tech industry is that if the performance difference from one model to the next up is 10% or less, it will most likely be unnoticeable to the user.

So a MBP 15" increase of CPU from 2.4GHz to 2.53GHz is only 5.4% and will not likely be noticeable in day to day use, for example.

Thus, I think the high-end models are purchased by either folks whose usage demands the best-that-money-can-buy (within the Mac lineup) or who folks who just happen to have lots of cash to spend.

Given that Apple took near to a year to come out with what amounts to speed and spec bump increases, I would say not likely to get any other MacBook Pro model changes any time soon.
The MacRumor Buyer guide <http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Pro> shows the average time frame to be 200 days.

rajbonham
Apr 13, 2010, 01:38 PM
Update of shi*** :(:(

I am still waiting to WWDC

Unbelievable. They updated the MacBook Pro and people are whining and asking for another update in June?!!?!

How about the Mac Pro, which wasn't updated and now has not been refreshed for over 400 days? Some of you MacBook Pro fanboys need to get off your high horse.

bobfitz14
Apr 13, 2010, 01:39 PM
i'm satisfied, now i'm just waiting on the Back to School discount

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 01:42 PM
i'm satisfied, now i'm just waiting on the Back to School discount

when is the "back to school discount"? and how much do u usually get back on the back to school discount? is it worth the wait?

LaMerVipere
Apr 13, 2010, 01:46 PM
I was looking to replace my unibody 15" MacBook Pro with a new 13" because I wanted something smaller and lighter and I thought, "Well it won't have better graphics but at least it will have a much better processor!"

I was hoping for i5. Well, clearly that wasn't the case.

My 15" MacBook Pro already has a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of memory, and dual graphics. It doesn't have an SD card reader, but I do have an express card slot.

Little incentive to upgrade now really.

wongdavidw
Apr 13, 2010, 01:46 PM
Finally !!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

I'm happy , slight bump in battery life , updated processors ...

gonna get my 15" finally , feel for those who were waiting for the 13" though...

Aussie prices down $200 :D


price down AUD 200 for the 15'' MBP , is this for real ??

beginnersview
Apr 13, 2010, 01:46 PM
Do you guys think there will be any updates on these MBPs at WWDC? I don't remember if Apple has ever updated the notebooks so soon after a previous update.

Not likely.

Referencing the excellent MacRumor Buyer guide <http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Pro> shows the average time frame to be 200 days between MacBook Pro updates. And 300 days for today's models.

So that would put an expected MBP model future update to be around the end of the year or early next.

pooprscooper
Apr 13, 2010, 01:48 PM
i'm satisfied, now i'm just waiting on the Back to School discount

Entry level 13" for $999 as a refurb seems like a much better deal. Just wait 1-2 months for it to show up.

silky2woods
Apr 13, 2010, 01:49 PM
had to pull the trigger.
15" i7 hiRes with a 7200 drive....talk about over priced, but I paid it anyway.
Piss Poor update at best IMO

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 01:49 PM
That's funny, because we've seen studies out there that have put ASUS at higher reliability than even Apple

Anywho, the 13" is dissappointing, but the other updates were in line with expectations

For what it's worth, a laptop can be reliable while still being subpar from a quality perspective (depending on your definition of quality). Asus generally has good reliability, in the sense that a laptop from them isn't as likely as some others to fail, have parts crap out, etc. But a lot of Asus laptops still have issues with things like subpar screens, flimsy keyboards, flexing case materials, etc.

-Zadillo

beginnersview
Apr 13, 2010, 01:50 PM
when is the "back to school discount"? and how much do u usually get back on the back to school discount? is it worth the wait?

They usually run their Back-to-school program from June through early September.
And typically announce or advertise it in May.
And usually update the iPods that come as the bundled bonus, right after the end of the promo (and I mean sometimes within days of the end of the promo).

The value of the bundle depends on which model of iPod you select, so could be anywhere from 5 to 10% or so. The way it usually works is that you buy a Mac through the education store, saving usually about 5% on the Mac, then you can select an iPod on the same order invoice, and get its price rebated back to you. Note it has to be placed on the same order.

So the overall savings on the total order is from 5% to 10% off from standard Apple store prices, again depending on what model Mac and what model iPod and what all you put on the order.
Of course, if you don't want or need an iPod, then the Back-to-school promo is not that significant, since you get the same education channel pricing on the Mac itself all year round. (and if you don't need the ipod but do want to buy during the promo - drop me a line! ;) )

wongdavidw
Apr 13, 2010, 01:52 PM
Do you really need the few more Megahertz that badly? How about these 10 HOURS battery life, twice the graphics memory (twice the RAM on the base bodel)?

The things I like about my 2009 13" MBP (the current model up until yesterday) is the backit keyboard, the never-sticky and large trackpad, the LED lit screen, loudspeaker volume, long battery life and the looks and feel of it. I rarely max out the CPU (except when browsing some bad website with flash or in Logic Studio) and like how small and light the thing is and the fact that I don't need to panic if I forgot the power adapter at home so much.

I can sort of Understand your frustation, well in a way, i do feel like having at least i3 on the 13'' rather than core2duo, despite the fact of the price cut!!

Bye Bye Baby
Apr 13, 2010, 01:55 PM
A little disappointing. I didn't realise that the mobile i7 was only dual core.

Julie07
Apr 13, 2010, 01:55 PM
Darn darn darn darn... :(

My Mother-In law saw my late-08 13" MBP last month and said "i want one of those!"

So... heh heh... I knew the updates were coming out, so I convinced her to buy my old one for 1k, so I could upgrade to a nice, new, upgraded 13" with AT LEAST an i5.

But my evil master plan has been foiled!

:mad:


Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...so pony up some more green and go for the 15....maybe MIL will be REAL jealous! :D

Jack Lithian
Apr 13, 2010, 01:57 PM
I've been waiting for a new 13" model only about a month now so no 6 month nailbiting for me. I currently own a desktop AMD 3800+ X2 (ancient) with 1024mb DDR 400mhz ram. I think the basemodel will do great for me, ok it's not an i5 processor but do I really need a 15" model which costs €550 ($750) more only to surf the internet watch an occasional movie and work with Ableton live and other music apps?
The €550 will buy me a very decent 24" screen on the side also with money to spare.

wongdavidw
Apr 13, 2010, 02:00 PM
Do you really need the few more Megahertz that badly? How about these 10 HOURS battery life, twice the graphics memory (twice the RAM on the base bodel)?

The things I like about my 2009 13" MBP (the current model up until yesterday) is the backit keyboard, the never-sticky and large trackpad, the LED lit screen, loudspeaker volume, long battery life and the looks and feel of it. I rarely max out the CPU (except when browsing some bad website with flash or in Logic Studio) and like how small and light the thing is and the fact that I don't need to panic if I forgot the power adapter at home so much.

absolutey true.. however, I do believe if the 13'' would be so much more attractive if it comes with at least an i3 rather than the core2duo despite the fact of the price cut!! It simply position the 13'' as a bargain deal instead of a proper update

Maserati7200
Apr 13, 2010, 02:02 PM
Not true. I use my 13" for CS4 (and soon CS5), Logic Pro / MainStage, and in a pinch Aperture ("pinch" only from the display not being the best).

And, there are tens, maybe hundreds like me out there !!! :eek:
Read my post again. I said most 13" MBP users would never use the specs. I said "it doesn't mean you won't use the power but most won't"
I'm wondering why they still don't offer the standard res screen with the $50 Antiglare option. This is going to upset many "average" customers that didn't mind spending the extra $50 for the Antiglare. Now they're told they have to spend $150 for it? And it has to be high res? I say bring back the standard Antiglare option.

We get it Apple, you hate Antiglare screens, but face that facts, more customers than you are willing to acknowledge prefer the matte finish. Pros hate glossy and most people over 30 or 40 hate glossy. We're tired of you playing your little dictatorship game when it comes to this issue. It's time you got over yourselves.
This is a prefect example of why Apple will never satisfy everyone. They upgraded the display to 1680x1050, and people are saying that's still too low, and that they should be 1920x1080. Now you are saying the resolution is too high? Really?


would it kill them to throw a new processor into the 13 inch? of course, cause it's the most popular laptop, and they wouldn't want to put a new processor into the most popular laptop and give people ANOTHER reason to buy the cheapest one.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love for an arrandale chip to be there, but is there space in there for a larger battery for the dedicated graphics card it would need? Is there even space for the card itself without a larger battery?
http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/4U6FOVHCT4JwTMvX.huge
just because you drink the apple kool-aid for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and have the logo tattooed to a body part normally hidden by clothing DOESN'T mean you get to tell others who expect more to shut up. at one time, before corporations became the objects of religious worship, vendors actually responded to customer demand. today, it's the other way around, with some companies tossing scraps to their loyal customers and telling them that they're lucky to get that.

yes, these updates are disappointing. they are simply after thoughts, with apple throwing its customers a bone because they HAD to, in order to keep even the slightest bit competative. so what's not to like? no usb3; no esata; no blu ray (even as an option for crimeny's sake); no ssd's standard; and most importantly, no core i5 on the 13 inch models. you can't really call your products revolutionary, advanced, or magical when they lack features that 90% of your competitors have at the same price point. and given that i can obtain a version of snow leopard that doesn't require genuine apple hardware, you can't even say the os is the defining feature.

now, why is this happening? for different reasons, but it all boils down to where steve jobs wants to position the company, namely as an american Sony, a purveyor of mobile consumer electronics such as mp3 players, phones, tv set top boxes and tablets. and why does mr jobs like these devices so much? because he can make them completely closed environments where even the software you run has to be approved by and purchased through Apple. and i'm sure if jobs could figure out a way to turn back the clock on desktops and laptops, he'd find a way to close up those boxes too. and if there weren't enough evidence of this already given the anemic specs on offer, the dreadful state of bugginess of os x 10.6 upon release and the fact that resources for os x 10.7 are now being cannibalized in favor of iphone os 4 should pretty much complete the picture. apple just isn't that much into to its desktop and laptop offerings anymore, and it shows. apple changed its corporate name from apple computer, inc. to apple,. inc. for a reason. all these updates do is underline the fact and put an exclamation mark at the end of the statement.
1) Look at my post history, I'm hardly an Apple cultist.
2)Don't get me wrong, I'd love an Arrandale to be here, but there isn't space on the 13"' board for a dedicated GPU. And even if there was, it has a much smaller battery than the 15" and 17", so battery life would decrease. If they put i5 in there, they would probably need to take out the optical drive, and then more people would complain. And lets be honest, most (not all) people using the 13" MBP, don't need more power. Most people buying 13" MBPs are students and/or people who know nothing about computers and what's inside of them. I'm not saying that's an excuse to stay with C2D's, but look at the options. A)They somehow redesign the board for a dedicated GPU to fit; battery life goes down. B) They don't have a dedicated GPU at all; battery life goes through the roof, but the Intel graphics bring down the performance so bad that even the computer illiterate would notice, and YOU would be complaining that there is not dedicated GPU in the 13" MBP. C) They give it a higher clocked C2D and a much better GPU, along with better battery life.
D) No significant update (like maybe they would put a 250gig HDD standard and up the RAM) They chose C. And it's probably the best compromise for now. Because your getting higher performance for the people who want it (and people who want/need the higher performance are a very small percentage of 13" MBP buyers) while retaining battery life. What do you think Suzy the college student would rather have, a notebook she would write her essays on and use facebook for that has 10 hours of battery, or 3? Just because the 13" MBP has "pro" in it, doesn't mean its a professional machine. It's the sad truth, but it's true. It's a name that makes people feel better. I believe losing out on a small performance gain in the CPU is better than having low battery life.

3) eSata: that would be nice, I agree, but not all of it's competition has eSata, either.
4)USB3: Yeah, I'll admit that was a little disappointing.
5) Blu-ray, fine I'll give you that, because I wanted blu-ray on Macs
6) No SSD's standard: What? Why the hell would that be standard? Then all the prices would go up for everyone, including those that don't want them yet. If you want an SSD, they have them in BTO, not that big of a deal.
7) 10.6 has been rock solid since 10.6.2 for me, and most people.
8) Yeah while Apple might care more about those devices at this point, they're accessories. You need a computer to use them. If they stop their development for computers then people won't buy Macs and thus they either A)can't buy those accessories or B) Will buy a PC instead, and i doubt Apple wants that

vitaflo
Apr 13, 2010, 02:05 PM
Total fail. No anti-glare option on the 15" without their stupid "hi-res" screen (which is an extra $150)? NOBODY WANTS GLOSSY SCREENS!! "Hi-res" screens in 15" make things way too tiny to read.

Horrible update. Total and complete failure on Apple's part.

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 02:07 PM
i've been following tech for almost 20 years and i can't remember the last time a new computer product cost more than the last generation it replaced. Apple innovated again.

The base model 15" MBP costs $100 more than the previous model, but that is because the base model now has both integrated and dedicated graphics. The previous base model 15" was integrated graphics only.

Not sure what's confusing about this.

Hal Itosis
Apr 13, 2010, 02:07 PM
GeForce GT 330M is not my thing

It is like the worst macbook update. 13 inch having Core 2 Duo. Jesus, what the hell?
Would a better GPU improve the quality (i.e., content) of your posts i wonder?



Nope. This version is just a dual core CPU with HyperThreading, it does not have four real cores.

And that makes those updates very disappointing. After all, those are supposedly high-end machines.
Yeah... because we want a hotter chip to burn our legs and wear out the battery faster. We're soooo verrrry disappointed about that.



This is nothing less than a bad joke on Apples part.

They must really be wanting to kill off their laptop line.
Care to place a wager? [hint: you lose.]



WOW!
13" Macbook Pro BOUGHT!!!
4GB and i5 in a 13" model for 1199? SOLD.
Fantastic update and was more than I was hoping for.

The 13" MBP is C2D, not Core i5. You got hosed.
Congratulations, you're the 100th person to catch his mistake. Unfortunately... since the 2 hour mark has already passed, you didn't qualify to win the prize. :( [pro tip: folks, when you spot an obvious error on page one of a thirty-page thread... you can bet it's been dealt with a dozen times already, ad nauseam.]



not expected a mobile nuclear power plant, or a oLed screen. But at least a bluray, and 1080p to 15" line, weak update. :apple::cool:
Yeah, no "bag of hurt" in the new MBPs. Took everyone by surprise that did. Quite the shock.



Now if only MacRumors followed Robert's Rules of Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order), I would so motion to close debate on this already. More than 30 pages of comments seems a little excessive.
After a 7-part record-breaking thread totaling some 40,000 (80,000?) posts in the "Waiting for Arrandale" series... this thread heralding its long-awaited arrival should shut down after 30 pages? Good luck with that. [no doubt this will expand into other threads once folks get the item in their hands and the reviews start pouring in.]



Let me explain some basic economics to you.
Back when all their screens were non-glossy, *all* laptop screens were non-glossy. Then the various win-box manufacturers started using glossy screens and promoting how vivid they were, and how much better the contrast was. Somewhere around here, glossy screens became a BTO option on MacBooks (around $50-$100 as I recall, depending upon exactly when).

Over time, the display manufacturers switched more and more of their production lines over to the glossy displays. As this progressed, glossy screens became more and more common until people were complaining that you had to pay extra for a glossy screen on Macs. At some point, the glossy screens became the default option everywhere (at which point people started to complain that they couldn't get a non-glossy screen on Macs, go figure). At this point, there is so little demand for non-glossy screens, and correspondingly little supply, so the prices have gone up because they're essentially considered a 'specialty' item. There's just barely enough demand for non-glossy screens to justify making them any more, and not nearly enough to make the same savings on production scale that they used to.

That's why a non-glossy screen is more expensive now, even though a glossy screen *used* to be more expensive.

(But then, I suppose you were just complaining for the sake of being heard to whine, so I don't expect you to actually listen.)
Excellent post. Should be a sticky somewhere. [plus: most users who prefer glossy (like me) have enough sense to tilt the screen and position the unit so that reflections are zip.]




For work, I run Win 7 Enterprise [same as ultimate really] (64 bit) on a Dell Optiplex 755. Intel Core Duo 2.33 (dual core) with 4.00 gb ram (only 3.87 is usable). Has a 150gb hard drive with a raid 1.

My backups won't work (totally filed up a 1 tb drive in 2 days), I have occassional lock ups, CPU goes to 100% when only running office and the virus scanner kicks is. I barely have anything installed and shut down the virtual PC's when not in use (hogs a way to much resources).

For Home (and sometimes work when the Dell acts up) I use a 2008 white macbook 2.4 ghz with 2gb of ram. my fans ever rarely kick in, now that I removed parallels and Windows, performs like brand new. I have a way lot more and use a way lot more simultaneously on my macbook than I do on Windows. Not a problem in 2 years.

I also own a Lenovo X61T Tablet with Vista Home Premium. 1.83 ghz with 3 gb ram - slow as molasses, a lot slower than my Dell XPS 1.83 ghz with 2gb ram that died 2 years ago (just after the warrenty ran out - internally cracked display, could not even buy a replacement for it; Dell could not find one).

Personally I think Apple is designed in a way that you really get your money's worth in terms of lifespan and overall usage. Yeah, I thought the same when I switched to Apple (expensive and you have to get used to a new OS). Well, in terms of usage, I have gotten more use and am a lot happier with my macbook. an upgrade would be nice, but now that I cleaned off windows, parallels, etc. My machine runs like new and I gained 115gb on the hard drive.

I also ran into someone at Starbucks the other day. He is still using is 2005 Powerbook for most stuff. He was not thinking of upgrading for another year.

Yeah, I talk to a lot of Windows and Apple users when I am out and about. Most that said they tried or switched to Apple would not go back. Also, the lack of blu-ray really did not concern them much. They had Windows PC's with blu-ray and found that they ran into a couple issues with rendering blu-ray movies that would not play on a blu-ray player. And also they ran into trouble trying to use the full storage capability (underwrite errors). Blu-ray may not be there yet. Also here in NC, there are still only 1 or 2 blu-ray players on display at any given time in the stores, and very few blu-ray movies out.

From what I am hearing, while the quality may be better for blu-ray, they still can't justify the costs. Also, tell me why when I go into a store, there are no internal or external blu-ray drives? Most are still CD-RW or DVD-RW D/L +- or multi-format; non support blu-ray. Also a lot of computer makers, blu-ray is BTO option, and not standard on a lot of PC's.

So when the rest of the world adopts blu-ray as mainstream; then I will complain about the lack of blu-ray on Apple computers.

Same with USB 3.0 and Wireless N - None are 100% mainstream yet.
Another great post... with a balanced perspective.

--

Not every computer need be designed for a 16-year-old with an inferiority complex.

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 02:08 PM
A little disappointing. I didn't realise that the mobile i7 was only dual core.

There is a mobile i7 that is quad core but it has a higher TDP that probably makes it unsuitable for the MBP chassis (not to mention heat and battery life concerns). You can find it in larger and heavier workstation and gaming laptops if you do absolutely need a quad core though.

shervieux
Apr 13, 2010, 02:10 PM
I am not sure where you observed this. If anything, there is more telecommute nowadays.

I also telecommute. Most telecommuters are logging on through a VPN and connecting to a company's server. I have seen companies implement Citrix, RDP , or PC Anywhere - there your PC is not doing the share power, rather the server or PC you are connected to is performing most the processing.

Truthfully, all I run on my work computer is MS Office, a few small apps for checking file integrity, a few small virtual PC's (only running 256 to 512 mb ram) - so I can connect to more than one VPN at a time if needed. Everything else is done through remote desktop, citrix, terminal services, or PCA on a server.

Heck, if it was not for the VPC's and needing multiple VPN's - I could do all my work on an ipad. Just log in remotely to somewhere.

Even telecommuting, very little is actually run on your PC if setup properly (ie not a real cloud, but close to a cloud). Not like the old days of do everything your PC and then upload files and download new files and do everything on your PC.

With the computing shift, it seems I need less and less powerful computers. In fact if the screen was not so small, I could just use my iphone. I did it one day for kicks. I was on my couch, RDP'd to my work computer and controlling that, my work computer was RDP'd into a server.

It worked great - just the screen is a way to small. Had to a lot of pinch and zooming with a lot of scrolling. However, it still worked and the speed was not that bad.

wongdavidw
Apr 13, 2010, 02:10 PM
Do you really need the few more Megahertz that badly? How about these 10 HOURS battery life, twice the graphics memory (twice the RAM on the base bodel)?

The things I like about my 2009 13" MBP (the current model up until yesterday) is the backit keyboard, the never-sticky and large trackpad, the LED lit screen, loudspeaker volume, long battery life and the looks and feel of it. I rarely max out the CPU (except when browsing some bad website with flash or in Logic Studio) and like how small and light the thing is and the fact that I don't need to panic if I forgot the power adapter at home so much.

http://www.batmancomic.info/gen/20100413064423_4bc47537cbc9b.jpg

lol... Bravoo

sunnylee
Apr 13, 2010, 02:15 PM
sucks that 13 still has core 2 duo...

i plan on buying one anyway because i need a new computer and funds are tight.. should I wait a little while to get a new version of os x and ilife?? im not sure when those are to be updated does anybody know anything about that? any rumors about office 2010 and iwork??

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 02:15 PM
I don't see why people want Core i3 in any Apple product.

It's a modern day Celeron.

A better way of putting it is that its like taking one step forward in CPU performance but 100 steps backwards in GPU performance.

In a real world situation, the difference between the higher clocked Core 2 Duo and Core i3 would not be seen.

However, as time goes on and more things rely on OpenCL, that Core i3 with Intel graphics is going to seem like a turtle compared to that Core 2 Duo and nvidia GPU.

Also, I said it in another post and I'll say it here. The battery life is fantastic. But good battery life doesn't put Apple in a place where they can charge $1,000 more than better spec'ed Core i7 PCs.

MacBook Pro is still missing Blu-ray and 16x9 screens.

Edit: dual core Core 7 in MBP? Hilarious.

bobfitz14
Apr 13, 2010, 02:17 PM
when is the "back to school discount"? and how much do u usually get back on the back to school discount? is it worth the wait?

They usually run their Back-to-school program from June through early September.
And typically announce or advertise it in May.
And usually update the iPods that come as the bundled bonus, right after the end of the promo (and I mean sometimes within days of the end of the promo).

The value of the bundle depends on which model of iPod you select, so could be anywhere from 5 to 10% or so. The way it usually works is that you buy a Mac through the education store, saving usually about 5% on the Mac, then you can select an iPod on the same order invoice, and get its price rebated back to you. Note it has to be placed on the same order.

So the overall savings on the total order is from 5% to 10% off from standard Apple store prices, again depending on what model Mac and what model iPod and what all you put on the order.
Of course, if you don't want or need an iPod, then the Back-to-school promo is not that significant, since you get the same education channel pricing on the Mac itself all year round. (and if you don't need the ipod but do want to buy during the promo - drop me a line! ;) )



thanks to beginnersview i don't have to answer either question haha. i'm only waiting cause i could go for a new iPod to replace my 1G 32gig Touch considering it's been having a lot of problems.

jcrowe
Apr 13, 2010, 02:20 PM
Hi Folks,

People seem to misunderstand the difference between the new Intel microarchitectures vs. the core 2 ones. There are several relevant points that favor the i7, even when comparing a dual core processor between the two generations. One is that the i7s have an on chip memory controller, which makes memory access much faster. Another is that i7s have hyper-threading in hardware, which allows faster and more efficient use of threaded resources. Another win is that the i7 chip is more energy efficient, yielding longer battery life between charges and cooler running systems. Above all, I have to seriously wonder whether people complaining about this update ever really max out the resources of their existing systems. Sometimes people just want something comparable to a formula 1 car for tootling down to the grocers for a pack of fags. Initial benchmarks look good for these guys.

Pax

ma2ha3
Apr 13, 2010, 02:22 PM
what no usb 3 or bluray combo?
it is already obselete during launch
what? they expect us to pay through our nose and get this obselete notebook?
what a ripoff. apple computer is now an ipod, iphone, itouch and ipad company..

Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 2010, 02:29 PM
Congratulations, you're the 100th person to catch his mistake. Unfortunately... since the 2 hour mark has already passed, you didn't qualify to win the prize. :( [pro tip: folks, when you spot an obvious error on page one of a thirty-page thread... you can bet it's been dealt with a dozen times already, ad nauseam.]

Again, some people just want to be THAT GUY/GAL that corrects the wrong person on the internet. It just gives them a purpose in life, and these people RUSH to do it.

Makes them feel smarter I guess.

cupcakes2000
Apr 13, 2010, 02:31 PM
I think everyone in Europe, Canada, and Australia should stop complaining that Apple products cost more in their countries/continents. We understand. Guess what, everything costs more for you. Everything. Even products made in your countries when exported to America cost more. We pay less for a Bentley than someone in London does. Get over it. There are several reasons things cost more and it isn't limited to the exchange rate. We get it, you're upset/sad/pissed/crying/whatever. I understand, you want it to be more fair and have everyone in the world pay the same price for things relative to exchange rate, but, it isn't going to happen. I'm sorry. Really. But only because I have you jerks whining about it constantly. Every thread that mentions a product release/update is accompanied by at least three people from the above list of places complaining that "Our money is worth x, why can't apple see that?!" At least, on the whole, those posts are filled with tons of ridiculous typos and outrageous grammar, but they still get tiresome. Sorry. (rant off)


Capital 'A' for Apple. Capital 'R' for rant. There are more but I can't really be bothered with pointing them out to you. Sorry.

justperry
Apr 13, 2010, 02:32 PM
Why are the prices the same in Europe and America :(

They are not!
That is if you mean the number is the same>
In Holland You pay for instance € 2.149,00 for the 15" i7,not 2199.
Still a ******** ripoff.
I'll wait until I am back in Asia,Sg-HK and Indonesia are all cheaper(MUCH) than Here in Holland which sux.

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 02:32 PM
So a 15.4" 16x10 display, 2.66GHz DUAL CORE Core i7, 4GB DDR3, 500GB HDD, SD card slot, 2 USB, 1 Firewire 800, DisplayPort (adapters required!) and 512MB GeForce GT 330M for $2,199?

Though it does have fantastic battery life.

Versus this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114803

$899 gets you a QUAD core Core i7 at 1.6GHz (it IS faster than the CPU in the MBP), 4GB DDR3, 1GB GeForce GT 330M, 500GB HDD, ExpressCard 54, 4 USB, 1 eSATA, 1 Firewire 400, HDMI, VGA, multi-card reader, etc.

However, battery life is only in the 3 hour range.

But look at the difference in price. You not only get double the video memory but a faster processor for a full $1300 less. Thats enough to buy a 64GB iPad, a good display, and still have money left over.

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 02:34 PM
So a 15.4" 16x10 display, 2.66GHz DUAL CORE Core i7, 4GB DDR3, 500GB HDD, SD card slot, 2 USB, 1 Firewire 800, DisplayPort (adapters required!) and 512MB GeForce GT 330M for $2,199?

Though it does have fantastic battery life.

Versus this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114803

$899 gets you a QUAD core Core i7 at 1.6GHz (it IS faster than the CPU in the MBP), 4GB DDR3, 1GB GeForce GT 330M, 500GB HDD, ExpressCard 54, 4 USB, 1 eSATA, 1 Firewire 400, HDMI, VGA, multi-card reader, etc.

However, battery life is only in the 3 hour range.

But look at the difference in price. You not only get double the video memory but a faster processor for a full $1300 less. Thats enough to buy a 64GB iPad, a good display, and still have money left over.

That Toshiba is also a big giant piece of garbage. You're right though, if you care mostly about specs, and don't care about build quality, weight and thickness (almost 7 pounds, over 1.5" thick), or a crappy screen, go for it.

Ultimately you have to decide what you want to pay for. It's always been true that you could buy PC laptops for a very low price, and make sacrifices for specs.

jurryt
Apr 13, 2010, 02:37 PM
I think everyone in Europe, Canada, and Australia should stop complaining that Apple products cost more in their countries/continents. We understand. Guess what, everything costs more for you. Everything. Even products made in your countries when exported to America cost more. We pay less for a Bentley than someone in London does. Get over it. There are several reasons things cost more and it isn't limited to the exchange rate. We get it, you're upset/sad/pissed/crying/whatever. I understand, you want it to be more fair and have everyone in the world pay the same price for things relative to exchange rate, but, it isn't going to happen. I'm sorry. Really. But only because I have you jerks whining about it constantly. Every thread that mentions a product release/update is accompanied by at least three people from the above list of places complaining that "Our money is worth x, why can't apple see that?!" At least, on the whole, those posts are filled with tons of ridiculous typos and outrageous grammar, but they still get tiresome. Sorry. (rant off)


Uhm.. dude... it's your dollar which is so low and it's basically your country which makes the dollar so low... not to mention how deep it will fall when your country finds out they can not pay back their depths.

So, if the MBP is like 1800 in USA, it would be around 1300 euro here, that's already including US taxes and Apples profit. To get it here, you won't pay 450 euro more PER notebook. So.. you fail. You failed hard there.

justperry
Apr 13, 2010, 02:39 PM
I replied a few times to a post which brings Me to the last page but I always go back(Click back)2 pages so I am where I left of but it seems to be of now.
Brings Me to a page which I already read or a page up.
Wierd:confused::eek:

terriyaki
Apr 13, 2010, 02:42 PM
So how many cores are there in these mobile i5s and i7s? 2 or 4?

guitarlord
Apr 13, 2010, 02:42 PM
Stupid prices in the UK.

I was genuinely looking forward to my first Mac. I was going to get the 13". I thought there is no way that prices can go up as virtually every PC laptop has a Core 2 Duo with 4 GB ram and a 250 HDD and sells for £399 - £499.

How can Apple justify this????

The Dell, Sony, HP laptops look great and I am a fan of Windows 7. Just wanted to try a Mac. BUT NOT FOR £999.

I could get blu ray, a HD 5350 and a hi def screen on a PC laptop for that.

This is an epic fail by Apple. If the 13" cost £1500 or even £2000 people would still probably buy it, Apple will continue to push prices until they literally can't anymore.

gtokidd
Apr 13, 2010, 02:43 PM
So how many cores are there in these mobile i5s and i7s? 2 or 4?

2

iMacmatician
Apr 13, 2010, 02:54 PM
So it looks like the blame is on Intel for now.Until next year…

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 02:58 PM
Ah how I love the manic lifecycle of the hardcore deluded on this board.

wait wait wait wait hype hype hype hype wait wait wait wait excitement glee optimism dreaming disappointment wait wait wait wait hype hype hype hype DELIVERY! disappointment whining threats anger suicide hope rumor speculation wait wait wait...

Lather, rinse, repeat. :p

For the quad-core whiners, the i7 included in the update is the FASTEST, NEWEST, MOST EFFICIENT dual core processor available from Intel at the moment. For the vast majority of mobile applications it is FAR more suitable than the quad-core chip with a 55W TDP that has no business outside of anything other than a luggable mobile workstation that will pretty much always be hooked up to wall power.

Too much magic pixie dust floating around in here.

Eagerly anticipating the start of the next "I'm waiting for unobtanium" thread though. ;)

Eric S.
Apr 13, 2010, 03:12 PM
Wow, that's really a let down. I was hoping to get the same performance as the iMac Quad Core i7, nothing. It's still a dual core i7...

The iMac i7 is Lynnfield; the MBPs were never going to get that. Clarksfield was the only option for quad-core, but realistically the MBPs weren't going to get that either.

My 13" MacBook Pro is no longer "new." I love it all the same, but these updates really rub it in.

Really? My late 2008 aluminum unibody 13" Macbook, with 2.4GHz C2D and 4MB RAM still stacks up pretty good against the "new" 13" MBP. 13" is it for me as far as a laptop goes, and this announcement certainly gives me no motivation to upgrade.

Remember that the MB 13" was renamed to PRO just because it received an aluminum enclosure, a backlit keyboard and firewire... Blame Apple for that! ;)

You mean adding Firewire made it a Pro. :rolleyes: My Macbook already had those other things.

darkplanets
Apr 13, 2010, 03:16 PM
And quality of your response is excellent :D "If you don't like it, don't buy it." Really? Very fresh thought. It has become a motto of Apple apologists. Did you know that there are different i7 processors? Some have 2 cores (used by Apple) and some have 4 cores whih some people would prefer. And... no BluRay, no USB 3.0, no RGB LED screens, no quad SSDs - not much of an update. Apple laptops have been lagging behind PC counterparts for a while now. Imagine what the gap will be in a year.

I'll give you the first point, for sure :D. It's an overused cliche phrase that I found myself using today, but don't be mistaken, I'm not an apple apologist. There's a reason I don't go around flouting my hardware and screaming flash is dead. With that said, it really does apply at times. Consumers dictate the market. It never fails to amaze me how some people will go around bitching and carrying on about a product that doesn't meet their expectations expecting for someone to care and/or listen when there is plenty of other viable alternatives present. If it doesn't work for your needs, go buy something else! I personally feel like this a lackluster upgrade, and if I needed a laptop, I'd simply buy one from somewhere else and hackintosh it, without all of the excessive complaining.

Now I'm going to play devils advocate.

For the i7 processors, yes, I am quite aware there is a difference, in this case its an i7m thats a dual core. Regardless, there ARE performance gains. Having a quad core would be nice, but we'll address that later.

As for BluRay, USB 3.0, RGB LED screens... well, I'll give you the last one. That one should definitely be an easy fix, and to that, its shame on apple, if people actually cared. As for BR, I feel like it is mostly people screaming for it just because its been out for some time, but have no real use for it. Ignoring the legal issues with the licensing and restrictive system level DRM, what do you really need it for? (I'm not saying this one way or the other, its rhetorical). If you actually have a real need for it that doesn't include movies, then you have a valid point to complain about. I bet most people on here don't. As for USB 3.0... has apple ever been fast to adopt? What externals are out there that you need it for? If the answer is none, and no externals you need require it, then please, stop using this as a point. (Plus if lightpeak turns out as good as its rumored to be, id rather have that, since we know apple fails at port diversity).

Previously I said something about the quad cores... once again, what do you need it for? Really though. If you're doing work on it, cool. Then again though, you should probably be doing that on a desktop, not a laptop. It's not like its ideal for rendering or anything else. Chances are that most people on this forum don't actually need a quad core either. If you do, please, get another laptop. But enjoy your battery life.

I think that most people overlook the battery life, and simply choose to bitch and moan about lack of features they don't really need over something they do need, more power. if you want your tricked out quad core mobile personal space heater with usb3.0, ssd, etc, go buy one, but personally, id rather have a 10 hour battery.

As for your final statement, Apple laptops have always been lagging behind PC counterparts. The gap in a year will be the same as its always been, marginally behind. Thus has been the status quo for awhile, and it will remain as such. This update is just as blase as any other, and I really don't see the need for all of the inordinate bitching.

Apple apologist phrase or not, in this case it holds quite true: If it doesn't meet your needs and/or requirements, go buy something else, no ones forcing you to buy apple. I also get the feeling that some apple users really fail at hands on technology... if the hard-drive doesn't suit your needs, put something else in. Same goes for the RAM, except the MOBO has a 8 gb limit, as far as I'm aware. You can do both of these cheaply, relative to apple's pricing.

smooth
Apr 13, 2010, 03:20 PM
I look forward to Apple Update/Release days soley to hop in this site to read the forums. It's like a train wreck, I just HAVE to read all the posts.

I personally don't see the reason for the complaints, but I am not a heavy user. Each update the 13" MBP looks better and better to me - especially the 10 hour battery life unibody enclosure. Except for a slight reduction in battery life, my 2.5 year old MB still runs like new so I won't be getting one anytime soon. But it sure is tempting....


Ah how I love the manic lifecycle of the hardcore deluded on this board.

wait wait wait wait hype hype hype hype wait wait wait wait excitement glee optimism dreaming disappointment wait wait wait wait hype hype hype hype DELIVERY! disappointment whining threats anger suicide hope rumor speculation wait wait wait...

Lather, rinse, repeat. :p

For the quad-core whiners, the i7 included in the update is the FASTEST, NEWEST, MOST EFFICIENT dual core processor available from Intel at the moment. For the vast majority of mobile applications it is FAR more suitable than the quad-core chip with a 55W TDP that has no business outside of anything other than a luggable mobile workstation that will pretty much always be hooked up to wall power.

Too much magic pixie dust floating around in here.

Eagerly anticipating the start of the next "I'm waiting for unobtanium" thread though. ;)

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 03:21 PM
That Toshiba is also a big giant piece of garbage. You're right though, if you care mostly about specs, and don't care about build quality, weight and thickness (almost 7 pounds, over 1.5" thick), or a crappy screen, go for it.

Ultimately you have to decide what you want to pay for. It's always been true that you could buy PC laptops for a very low price, and make sacrifices for specs.

Well, as I said in the other thread, Apple gets far more credit than they deserve.

Build quality isn't nearly as good as Apple fans claim. I've had two systems replaced because of poor build quality and spend a combined total of more than two months without my Mac because of it and shoddy repair service.

The Toshiba I linked to weighs a pound more than the 15.4" MacBook Pro. Thats not even a full hamburger at some fast food restaurants.

Thickness is a non-issue. It gets carried in a bag. Plus that extra iPod classic worth of thickness means you get REAL hardware. Not a dual core Core i7.

Crappy screen? I'd like to see your proof of that.

tallguy
Apr 13, 2010, 03:21 PM
Well I looked online and it seems that I could sell my not even one year old 13" MBP for $1000 and then upgrade to a new MBP for 1280. Soooo a new laptop with more ram, faster cpu and better gpu will only cost me $280. That sounds like a deal to me considering I was thinking about upgrading ram anyways.

wolfenkraft
Apr 13, 2010, 03:24 PM
Uhm.. dude... it's your dollar which is so low and it's basically your country which makes the dollar so low... not to mention how deep it will fall when your country finds out they can not pay back their depths.

So, if the MBP is like 1800 in USA, it would be around 1300 euro here, that's already including US taxes and Apples profit. To get it here, you won't pay 450 euro more PER notebook. So.. you fail. You failed hard there.

No, I didn't fail. My point was that different markets will bear different prices. Everything costs more for you because your market will bear it. You failed to understand what I'm saying. The majority of Apple's consumers in America won't buy a mac for much more than they cost here, where as you already are used to paying ridiculous prices for most things. If Apple raised the prices here, people would just buy Sony or Dell and that would be the end of it.

As for the guy correcting my capitalization, that's fine. Really though, I spell quite well and thanks for correcting those two for me. In the mean time, I'm still right, I'm not being a dick, I'm pointing out that there is a lot of superfluous whining regarding prices. If you have an issue, demand lower prices by not buying the products.

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 03:24 PM
Plus that extra iPod classic worth of thickness means you get REAL hardware. Not a dual core Core i7.


I give you exhibit A. I'm guessing your main reason for wanting "quad core" is that four is two more than two?

I wish you the best of luck with that Toshiba.

[DL]
Apr 13, 2010, 03:32 PM
Now THIS is something I want to save up for.

scouser75
Apr 13, 2010, 03:33 PM
Blimey! Apple really is directing its attentions elsewhere in terms of products!!

This was an excellent opportunity to implement a few vital needs for its pro users.

But I have a sneaky feeling that Apple would be annihilated if they were to add blu-ray to a laptop before adding it to their Mac Pro line!

Anyway, I'm not going to state the obvious facts of the way Apple has begun treating its loyal customers (I can give examples but I really don't fancy getting blitzed by the Fan Boys!)

Now, does anyone know if the price reduction of the 17" models apply to the UK???

Eric S.
Apr 13, 2010, 03:34 PM
"Taking macs to the next level in 2010!" Yeah right.

Once again it was "macs taking Apple to the next level." A subtle difference there.

What? you know other companies have done this already right?

Not without compromises that Apple is unwilling to make.

and that cost you how much? I'm going to bet $1,500.

Was there a question about how much it cost? Who cares? I don't.

G4DP
Apr 13, 2010, 03:37 PM
Ah but don't forget all the discounts we enjoyed when the pound was trading at well over $2 a couple of years ago. No wait - we got shafted then too!

That sums Apple attitude to the UK up perfectly. Couldn't have put it better. We should be thanked by our American cousins. We've been substituting their cheap arse' for years.

justperry
Apr 13, 2010, 03:40 PM
Prices in germany are almost 1:1. This feels like such a rip-off to me. I wanted a 15" with a matte Screen but now this is gonna be 250,- Euros more.

Month of waiting and now ...

I agree that Apple is more expensive but what You and many other's seem to forget is that the prize You see on Apple america site are prizes before tax,this means they have to pay another $ 140 on a $2000 laptop.
I am in for a new one but I will wait until I fly back to Asia,makes a hell of a difference,especially Hongkong,check it out.
Hong Kong 15" i7 = Hk$ 16,788 = 1,589.47 Euro's
Europe(Holland) 15" i7 = 2,149.00 Euro's

Difference = 559,53 Euro's :D:D:D (Lucky Me)

Strange $ 2,199.00 = 1,616.32 EUR :confused: Before tax:confused:

Now that is strange,if I buy in HK its cheaper for Me than The States,that never happened before.
Yippee

bruno7
Apr 13, 2010, 03:40 PM
Well, I sold my Powerbook G4 from 2004 last October. It did a great job and worked like a charm for over 5 years!

Now, after 6 months without a laptop, imagine - what an upgrade for me!

PB - 1GHz G4, 2 GB RAM, 120GB HD, sh***y graphics and so on...

MBP - 2.4 i5, 4GB RAM, 320 GB HD, excellent graphics and so on... (let alone that beautiful unibody...)

I wonder, will my new machine be at least a tiny bit faster and better than the old one?

:-D

So looking forward! I cannot wait to have one!

Long Live Apple!

vijay007
Apr 13, 2010, 03:45 PM
I would assume that if the display resolution on the 15" is bumped to 1680-by-1050, it will eat up battery faster compared to the standard 1440-by-900 display.

Can someone confirm this?

Anyone????

jeffh
Apr 13, 2010, 03:50 PM
Anyone????

Definitely get the better screen rez. A no-brainer.

Eric S.
Apr 13, 2010, 03:52 PM
To be honest, I was expecting more, given Steve Jobs' comments.

Which comments were those? "Not to worry"? :rolleyes:

ranReloaded
Apr 13, 2010, 03:53 PM
Judging from the knee-jerk reactions so far I'd say people were happier complaining about the lack of an update :p

Who needs this crap! Just gimme the new MBPs alread-... wait... Sorry, guess I got drawn by the inertia! :rolleyes:

marklinfield
Apr 13, 2010, 04:06 PM
Come on Apple, please get this one right. You need at least one 'Pro Machine' in a 15 inch form factor. And it ain't a Pro machine until it has an express card slot. One single fast(ish) connection (FW800) does not suffice.

After all the postings on the subject, and the long wait for the update, a large part of pro video and audio community had assumed that the express card slot would be re-instated in 15 inch MBPs. Simply being told to buy a 17 inch if you want a proper Pro machine isn't really good enough as it has too large a footprint for many uses.

Yet again this is going to force me to hold off my upgrade as I am far better off with a with a slower 15 inch with express card than a faster one without. Me and many, many others.

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 04:08 PM
I give you exhibit A. I'm guessing your main reason for wanting "quad core" is that four is two more than two?

I wish you the best of luck with that Toshiba.

When you do the math and look at real world, non-synthetic benchmarks, the quad core Core i7 running 8 threads at a lower clock speed is a good 25% faster than the dual core Core i7 running 4 threads at a higher clock speed.

Oh and it's $1300 less.

For $2,200 I demand the BEST for my money. Not something that looks pretty but doesn't get the job done as fast or as good as systems costing well less than half as much.

munstedt
Apr 13, 2010, 04:11 PM
Sorry if anyone has already said this, but did anyone notice the different place of the ir sensor on the 15 inch MacBook pro? Also the optical drive looks too high on the 13 inch...:eek: did apple mess up or are these changes to the design?

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:16 PM
When you do the math and look at real world, non-synthetic benchmarks, the quad core Core i7 running 8 threads at a lower clock speed is a good 25% faster than the dual core Core i7 running 4 threads at a higher clock speed.

Oh and it's $1300 less.

For $2,200 I demand the BEST for my money. Not something that looks pretty but doesn't get the job done as fast or as good as systems costing well less than half as much.

OK, seriously, what are you waiting for then? Haven't you already placed your order for the fabulous 6.5 pound Toshiba with a quad core i7 and a 1366x768 15.6" res screen and a ~2 hour battery life?

cwwilson
Apr 13, 2010, 04:17 PM
Ahh so the update finally arrives...I think I might spring for a base model 15 inch by year's end.

once
Apr 13, 2010, 04:19 PM
"Top end" 17" i7 620M Macbook Pro:
dual core
32nm cpu
4mb l3 cache

Apple gave us an upgrade that's not really an upgrade. hhahahaha

the 620M is the weirdest i7 intel offers. it's a total red headed step child. the 720, 820, 920 all use 45nm. they all support ddr3 1333. and it's crippled with a 4mb l3 cache. damn it's honestly a rebadged core 2 duo again hhahah.

this is a cpu dell doesn't even offer on their studio 7 or xps 16 model, which I thought would have been the equivalent of a 17" high end mbp.

what's up apple?

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:22 PM
"Top end" 17" i7 620M Macbook Pro:
dual core
32nm cpu
4mb l3 cache

Apple gave us an upgrade that's not really an upgrade. hhahahaha

the 620M is the weirdest i7 intel offers. it's a total red headed step child. the 720, 820, 920 all use 45nm. they all support ddr3 1333. and it's crippled with a 4mb l3 cache. damn it's honestly a rebadged core 2 duo again hhahah.

this is a cpu dell doesn't even offer on their studio 7 or xps 16 model, which I thought would have been the equivalent of a 17" high end mbp.

what's up apple?

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm

The Core i7 620M has a 35 W max TDP; the 720 and 820 have a 45 W max TDP. Check out the Core i7 720M in the HP Envy 15 if you want to see how that works out.

Also, I'm not clear if you were talking about those CPU's using 45nm instead of 32nm as a positive or what.

once
Apr 13, 2010, 04:27 PM
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm

The Core i7 620M has a 35 W max TDP; the 720 and 820 have a 45 W max TDP. Check out the Core i7 720M in the HP Envy 15 if you want to see how that works out.

Also, I'm not clear if you were talking about those CPU's using 45nm instead of 32nm as a positive or what.

I expect apple to figure out how to use the fastest intel chips better than PC laptop manufacturers do.

and I was talking about 32nm as being the odd man out in the i7 family.

but the most blatant way the 620M is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, is it's just a dual core cpu. .....like core 2 duos

and wouldn't you agree the dual-core aspect of this cpu is it's most distinguishing feature?

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 04:32 PM
OK, seriously, what are you waiting for then? Haven't you already placed your order for the fabulous 6.5 pound Toshiba with a quad core i7 and a 1366x768 15.6" res screen and a ~2 hour battery life?

Actually, the Toshiba I linked to has a 16" 16x9 display. The MBP has a 15.4" 16x10 display.

16x9 is ALWAYS better than 16x10. Always.

Don't forget that PowerBooks used to weigh more than 6.5 pounds ;) Apple has lightened the MacBook Pro by removing features and using increasingly lower and lower end internal hardware.

A 1 pound difference in systems rarely carried by hand means absolutely NOTHING when I'm getting so much more for my money and saving more money in the long run.

And who said 2 hour battery life? In my real world experience, systems like that get 3. But, again, in the real world, when has someone ever been away from a plug for more than a couple of hours? And, as I've stated before, PC batteries recharge extremely fast. Also, PC notebooks have a neat feature called a "user replaceable battery". Thanks to that, my current 15.4" almost 3 year old HP notebook with dedicated graphics can last LONGER away from a plug than any current MacBook.

Maserati7200
Apr 13, 2010, 04:33 PM
i've been following tech for almost 20 years and i can't remember the last time a new computer product cost more than the last generation it replaced. Apple innovated again.

The base 15" last year only had a 9400M, no additional 9600GT. Now the base has a 330M, a dedicated card like the 9600GT

lilo777
Apr 13, 2010, 04:36 PM
The base 15" last year only had a 9400M, no additional 9600GT. Now the base has a 330M, a dedicated card like the 9600GT

And? In real world (i.e. PC world) with each year, you get better specs AND better prices.

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:37 PM
I expect apple to figure out how to use the fastest intel chips better than PC laptop manufacturers do.

and I was talking about 32nm as being the odd man out in the i7 family.

but the most blatant way the 620M is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, is it's just a dual core cpu. .....like core 2 duos

and wouldn't you agree the dual-core aspect of this cpu is it's most distinguishing feature?

Apple does a fair amount as it is, but there are certain physical limitations that I don't think even they can do anything about, and I'm pretty sure there's only so much that can be done with the form factor they've chosen. Most of the machines I've seen with Core i7 720's that don't have serious heat issues are generally in somewhat thicker form factors than what Apple makes.

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily agree with this - I wish Apple was not so obsessed with having this single 1" thick form factor, as it would be nice if they could just make an alternate form factor 17" model without some of the same constraints.

But anyway, I'd still say overall performance in demanding CPU-heavy tasks is still its most distinguishing feature, personally, not the fact that it's dual core instead of quad core.

once
Apr 13, 2010, 04:40 PM
And? In real world (i.e. PC world) with each year, you get better specs AND better prices.

buying a mac has never been about benchmarkable bang for the buck. you're gonna get ripped off price wise for the amount of perf you get. (compared to PCs)

it's a good thing osx kicks so much ass. but damn, if hackintoshes were easy to make, omfg apple would lose a ton of their hardware sales.

it's true apple makes a beautiful laptop. but pc hardware value combined with osx would be amazing.

vipergts2207
Apr 13, 2010, 04:42 PM
I expect apple to figure out how to use the fastest intel chips better than PC laptop manufacturers do.

and I was talking about 32nm as being the odd man out in the i7 family.

but the most blatant way the 620M is really just a wolf in sheep's clothing, is it's just a dual core cpu. .....like core 2 duos

and wouldn't you agree the dual-core aspect of this cpu is it's most distinguishing feature?

Odd man out or not, I hope you realize 32nm is better than 45nm. You do know that right?

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:43 PM
Actually, the Toshiba I linked to has a 16" 16x9 display. The MBP has a 15.4" 16x10 display.

16x9 is ALWAYS better than 16x10. Always.

Don't forget that PowerBooks used to weigh more than 6.5 pounds ;) Apple has lightened the MacBook Pro by removing features and using increasingly lower and lower end internal hardware.

A 1 pound difference in systems rarely carried by hand means absolutely NOTHING when I'm getting so much more for my money and saving more money in the long run.

And who said 2 hour battery life? In my real world experience, systems like that get 3. But, again, in the real world, when has someone ever been away from a plug for more than a couple of hours? And, as I've stated before, PC batteries recharge extremely fast. Also, PC notebooks have a neat feature called a "user replaceable battery". Thanks to that, my current 15.4" almost 3 year old HP notebook with dedicated graphics can last LONGER away from a plug than any current MacBook.

16:9 is not ALWAYS better when you are talking about a 15.6" screen with a 1366 x 768 resolution.

You are right, if you are rarely going to carry your laptop around in your hands, the weight issue is not important.

But that is not an argument unique to the MBP. You could argue that anyone who buys the Sony Vaio Z is insane because you can get better specs in a package only a bit larger and a few pounds heavier.

But, shockingly, some people buy the Vaio Z - because for some people, what it offers IS of value.

Again, you seem to think that your own particular needs dictate what should matter to other people as well.

Personally, I do not want to carry a 6.5-7 pound laptop with significantly lower battery life. It is also true that you can carry around external batteries, but of course that adds to the travel weight too.

Anyway, again, I don't know why you're continuing to argue about this. It's very clear what things are and aren't important to you, and that the Toshiba fits your bill perfectly.

So why don't you just buy the Toshiba? Or are you also hoping to convince everyone here that that Toshiba (or other similar systems) are what they should choose and they are wrong to want a MBP?

-Zadillo

xbjllb
Apr 13, 2010, 04:47 PM
I've been visiting Mac Rumours for what seems like forever now, but this is the first time I've ever felt compelled to bitch about something in the forums. Actually, this is the first time I've ever really felt compelled to bitch at Apple, period.

I've been using Macs for about 8 years, after having to lean Shake for a job. As soon as the Intel Macbooks came out, back in the summer of 2006, I shelled out about 1200 bucks and bought a shiny, white, Core Duo Macbook (and then I upgraded the ram and hard drive to 2 gigs/100gigs).

Cutting the long story to a very short one, now it's 2010, Apple has discontinued Shake, seems to be discontinuing Final Cut Pro, and has effectively urinated on it's costumers looking for a serious upgrade to replace their half-working computers (in this case: me). I can't believe that in 4 years, all they can offer is nothing short of a minor spec update... basically doubling the processor speed, ram and hard drive of my machine, adding a graphics card but removing the firewire port in the process.

I don't want to rant on too much about this, because everyone here has heard a variation of this before but this is, in a word: ********. At this rate, it'll be 16 years before they put a terabyte drive in their cheapest laptop, and all of their proprietary software will exist in their App store for their mobile devices, and they won't even bother making anything for their computer line. Photoshop works just as well on a PC, Nuke is cross-platform, Avid has retaken the world, and Aperture just isn't that great.

It's really depressing to watch the company leverage down costs for their iPads, while refusing to do the same for their Macbooks. I have no idea at what point Apple abandoned it's commitment (maybe it never had one?) to "creative professionals" - dumb as that term is - but after years of using Macs, I can't think of one decent reason not to switch back to PCs.

At least let's wait until the iPad crashes and burns so we can REALLY kick Wille Wonka when he's down and we at least have a chance to oust him out of the company for good.

Hello! Windows!

For many of us, Windows is not an option.

For many MORE of us, Mickey Mouse, who runs the Apple asylum now, is insuring Windows is the ONLY option.


not expected a mobile nuclear power plant, or a oLed screen. But at least a bluray, and 1080p to 15" line, weak update. :apple::cool:

You'll get your Blu-ray all right... when you pry it out of Jobs' cold, dead, fingers.


It is so so sad.

I would have been an first-time Mac buyer, I have waited since November for a Macbook Pro 13" Update and now this ****** crap.

I am very disappointed, I have waited too long and I need a new laptop. Apple forces me now to buy a PC because I can't wait for another update circle. What a ********** crappy company. Lost a new customer right now!

Hi. Welcome to Apple. Please, buy one of our overpriced iPads that doesn't display websites properly.

Isn't that empty space where a video should be cool? Yes, it's a new feature. Why, yes, it does cost extra. Why no, you can't disable it to lower the price. Come now, this is APPLE, after all.


Total fail. No anti-glare option on the 15" without their stupid "hi-res" screen (which is an extra $150)? NOBODY WANTS GLOSSY SCREENS!! "Hi-res" screens in 15" make things way too tiny to read.

Horrible update. Total and complete failure on Apple's part.

Look Dude. We need to get down on our knees and give thanks that Lord Jobs deigned it ok to actually let the market decide whether glossy screens are the pieces of shyt we've said they were FROM DAY ONE, on ANY model at ANY price point.

I'm just grateful for the crumb of finally having an option. Something Crapple (or Mappel, if you prefer) is not too fond of since the return of Mickey Mouse as CEO.


Blimey! Apple really is directing its attentions elsewhere in terms of products!!

This was an excellent opportunity to implement a few vital needs for its pro users.

But I have a sneaky feeling that Apple would be annihilated if they were to add blu-ray to a laptop before adding it to their Mac Pro line!

Anyway, I'm not going to state the obvious facts of the way Apple has begun treating its loyal customers (I can give examples but I really don't fancy getting blitzed by the Fan Boys!)

Apple needed to implement Blu-ray across the entire line TWO UPDATES BACK to even be able to claim to be "cutting edge" with a straight face.

:apple:

once
Apr 13, 2010, 04:48 PM
But anyway, I'd still say overall performance in demanding CPU-heavy tasks is still its most distinguishing feature, personally, not the fact that it's dual core instead of quad core.

I meant it's most distinguishing feature compared to other i7's is that it's the only i7 that's still a dual core.

but yeah that would be awesome if apple added another form factor. I'm sure it will still be stylish and there's no way we would mistake it for a bulky dell.

once
Apr 13, 2010, 04:51 PM
Odd man out or not, I hope you realize 32nm is better than 45nm. You do know that right?

hhaha yeah looking back at that post it was really confusing what I was trying to say. I was listing in notepad all the unique things about the 620 and I just copied and pasted it into the post.

I guess I shoulda made it clearer that in my opinion the unique downsides far outweigh the 32nm or power perf. but that didn't really come out in that hastily launched post.

JTStarkiller
Apr 13, 2010, 04:54 PM
Hey, do you guys think the hi-res version of the 15" (which costs $100 more, and is 1680 instead of 1440) on the online store will be available in the Apple retail stores? I called two -- one said they didn't have it, but the second guy seemed kinda clueless. He was like, "yeah, we should have 'em."

Is this mainly just a configure to order feature, or should I take my chances at that second store? It's kinda far. Thanks.

ecapdeville
Apr 13, 2010, 04:54 PM
Not true. I use my 13" for CS4 (and soon CS5), Logic Pro / MainStage, and in a pinch Aperture ("pinch" only from the display not being the best).

And, there are tens, maybe hundreds like me out there !!! :eek:

Here!

But to do that I´m using my 27" imac i5... ;) my 13" MBP its just a backup...

ryero
Apr 13, 2010, 04:56 PM
Has anyone ordered it online?
When they say 1-3 days shipping.
Does that mean they'll start shipping it within the next 1-3 days or it'll arrive to my front door in 1-3 days?

I'm going on a business trip on Saturday, so I'll need it by Friday.
If I order it today, I wonder if I'll get it by Friday.
:D

Zadillo
Apr 13, 2010, 04:57 PM
I meant it's most distinguishing feature compared to other i7's is that it's the only i7 that's still a dual core.

but yeah that would be awesome if apple added another form factor. I'm sure it will still be stylish and there's no way we would mistake it for a bulky dell.

Ahh, gotcha. Yes, I'd say the dual core nature of it is one of the most distinguishing factors over the other mobile core i7's, but I'd also argue that 35W max TDP vs. the 45W max TDP is very significant as well (and the 32nm vs 45nm aspect).

But anyway, the larger point is a discussion about Apple's relatively limited number of systems and form factors and price points. I've pointed this out elsewhere, but I wish Apple wasn't reluctant to make a 13" MBP at a Vaio Z pricepoint with a Core i5 and GT330M, for example. Or to consider some thicker cheaper form factors that would give them more flexibility.

But clearly, the PC world is the way to go if you want a lot of diversity of choice in terms of specs and form factor. With OS X you are of course basically stuck with what you have to choose from (not getting into the hackintosh discussion here, of course), so if the various specs don't fit your needs, you're better off in the PC world where you are much more likely to find some manufacturer who will make something that fits your needs (from el cheapo $500 laptops to $3000 high end mobile workstations).

The only thing that gets me is that this hasn't been new, so i'm not sure why everytime there's a Mac hardware upgrade we get these long convoluted threads where it is treated as some shocking news.

Queso
Apr 13, 2010, 04:59 PM
damn it's honestly a rebadged core 2 duo again hhahah.
Oh dear. I suggest you go and read up on the differences between the Nehalem and Penryn architectures and interconnects. QuickPath and HyperThreading, better power efficiencies, better virtualization support. Seriously, go and Google it.

Dagless
Apr 13, 2010, 05:01 PM
Aw man, I blinked and missed this.
Still these updates aren't making me want to upgrade my 2008 13" Macbook. The graphics+battery life are pretty outstanding but there other than that it doesn't look to be that much better. They still only have 1 audio port which I couldn't do with.

Hal Itosis
Apr 13, 2010, 05:01 PM
When you do the math and look at real world, non-synthetic benchmarks, the quad core Core i7 running 8 threads at a lower clock speed is a good 25% faster than the dual core Core i7 running 4 threads at a higher clock speed.

Oh and it's $1300 less.

For $2,200 I demand the BEST for my money. Not something that looks pretty but doesn't get the job done as fast or as good as systems costing well less than half as much.

Once again, dual core runs cooler and the battery lasts longer.

Here are the benchmarks (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/13/benchmarks_show_core_i7_macbook_pros_offer_50_speed_boost.html) showing what Mac users gain from the previous model.

I know you want that Camaro with the super-charger so no one can doubt just how hot you are... but other people may have other considerations.

Eidorian
Apr 13, 2010, 05:04 PM
Ahh, gotcha. Yes, I'd say the dual core nature of it is one of the most distinguishing factors over the other mobile core i7's, but I'd also argue that 35W max TDP vs. the 45W max TDP is very significant as well (and the 32nm vs 45nm aspect).Do you believe Intel is going to shrink Clarksfield to 32nm in the Qx40M vs. the older Qx20M line?



The only thing that gets me is that this hasn't been new, so i'm not sure why everytime there's a Mac hardware upgrade we get these long convoluted threads where it is treated as some shocking news.It's predictable but it can be rather fun to discuss.

DakotaGuy
Apr 13, 2010, 05:06 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2941508835_663f4b337c.jpg?v=0

I assume you don't own a large HDTV or a BD player or you wouldn't be saying that. BD provides an awesome picture and sound experience.

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 05:11 PM
16x9 is ALWAYS better than 16x10. Always.


WTF are you smoking? Less resolution is better? Less vertical real estate is better? For what?

once
Apr 13, 2010, 05:15 PM
But clearly, the PC world is the way to go if you want a lot of diversity of choice in terms of specs and form factor. With OS X you are of course basically stuck with what you have to choose from (not getting into the hackintosh discussion here, of course), so if the various specs don't fit your needs, you're better off in the PC world where you are much more likely to find some manufacturer who will make something that fits your needs (from el cheapo $500 laptops to $3000 high end mobile workstations).

yeah you're right. TDP is very important for a laptop. I guess I just didn't weigh it as important when I'm already consigned to getting a beefy 17" that I hope is the ultimate powerhouse. I would assume there's enough space to build in sufficient cooling. which brings us back around to your point on form factors.

I totally understand it's tough for apple to take on the entire industry. And some of the form factor diversity comes from different companies making different models.

Perhaps I'm very narrowminded in the way I pick a laptop. I go back and forth between dells and apples hhaha. If I can't afford a $3000 17" mbp, I go back to the insane power out of a dell for $1000.

OSX has a lot to do with this. I'm more interested in the OS and what I can do with it, than strictly the beautiful form factor of a sony or apple.

That's why I would consider the ultimate laptop to be dell hardware w/ the greatest specs, but running osx86. I'm just frustrated that, price aside, I want my apple 17" mbp to beat out or come close to dell performance.

organerito
Apr 13, 2010, 05:19 PM
provided by the state via your taxes:rolleyes:

yes, but at least everyone gets health care. I have lived in the USA, France and now I live in Canada. There are many good things about a socialist approach in government. Living in the USA is great, but is not that great compared to France or, specially, to Canada.

mschipperheyn
Apr 13, 2010, 05:20 PM
Maybe I am an idiot, but I have a 2 year old 17" MBP 2.6 Core Duo w/ 4GB of ram.

Am I missing something, or are the processor speeds and spec's basically unchanged over the past 2 years?

I'm actually not trying to be cynical or passive aggressive - I am seriously curious? Are these quad core? Why is the new MBP an improvement? Why would you NOT buy a used 18 month old laptop for 1200 bucks?

Nope. You're dead on.

Hal Itosis
Apr 13, 2010, 05:20 PM
I assume you don't own a large HDTV or a BD player or you wouldn't be saying that. BD provides an awesome picture and sound experience.
But that's the whole point isn't it?

Blu-ray on anything **less** than a 42-inch screen isn't "all that and a bag of chips."

Only children who use their Macs for nothing but games and movie-watching are all worked up about Blu-ray. Blu-ray... on a 15" screen??? Gimme a break. Don't you spoiled brats have some homework to do? Instead of hanging out here whining all day, maybe you could get an engineering degree and beat Apple/Jobs in the computer industry.

:rolleyes:

Kristenn
Apr 13, 2010, 05:21 PM
So in feburary 2009 my parents finally bought me a new Macintosh for school because my iMac G3 started... really... well not booting right.

They paid.

$2,517

For.

2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo Processor

4GB DDR3 RAM

4 to 5 hour battery

250GB 7200 rpm HDD

256MB shared Nvidia Geforce 9600 M

512MB dedicated Nvidia Geforce 9600 M GT

Apple remote

iWork 09.

OS X 10.5.6

And now in April 2010 for the same high end MBP

$2,417.00

For.

2.66 Ghz Core i7 processor

4GB DDR3 RAM

8 to 9 hour battery

500 GB 7200 rpm HDD

Intel HD graphics 256 MB shared

Nvidia Geforce GT 330 M 512 MB dedicated

Apple remote

iWork 09

OS X 10.6.3


$100 dollars cheaper for the high end 15 inch that would completely smoke my MacBook Pro?

Don't know what all the complaining is about =/ Sure, no blue-ray and USB 3 but COME ON!!

It's $100 dollars cheaper than a computer a little over a year old and its like.. a lot faster. Am I crazy? Or do I think this update is really nothing to complain about?

I also forgot to mention thats with the high-res display

MacNut
Apr 13, 2010, 05:27 PM
So in feburary 2009 my parents finally bought me a new Macintosh for school because my iMac G3 started... really... well not booting right.

$100 dollars cheaper for the high end 15 inch that would completely smoke my MacBook Pro?

Don't know what all the complaining is about =/ Sure, no blue-ray and USB 3 but COME ON!!

It's $100 dollars cheaper than a computer a little over a year old and its like.. a lot faster. Am I crazy? Or do I think this update is really nothing to complain about?

I also forgot to mention thats with the high-res displaySmartest post of the day, well done. I know I will be finally upgrading my aging Powerbook in the next few days.

Shirotai
Apr 13, 2010, 05:28 PM
Aw man, I blinked and missed this.
Still these updates aren't making me want to upgrade my 2008 13" Macbook. The graphics+battery life are pretty outstanding but there other than that it doesn't look to be that much better. They still only have 1 audio port which I couldn't do with.

I was kinda toying with the idea of getting a new MBP 13" too, but it's made me realise that the one I've got is just fine.

It's kinda funny reading through these posts. I think that in the 5 months of waiting people had raised their expectations too much. They're still just computers, right!

once
Apr 13, 2010, 05:38 PM
Oh dear. I suggest you go and read up on the differences between the Nehalem and Penryn architectures and interconnects. QuickPath and HyperThreading, better power efficiencies, better virtualization support. Seriously, go and Google it.

yeah I guess that was too much hyperbole. I just felt that of all the i7's to stick in their highest end laptop.. it coulda been still been one that was more high end.

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 05:39 PM
16:9 is not ALWAYS better when you are talking about a 15.6" screen with a 1366 x 768 resolution.

Again, what 15.6" system are we talking about? The Toshiba I linked is 16" and the MBP is 15.4". 1366x768 is a 16x9 resolution. 1440x900 on the MBP is 16x10. 16x9 is always better because EVERYTHING is formatted for 16x9.

You are right, if you are rarely going to carry your laptop around in your hands, the weight issue is not important.

And even if I did, it's not an issue. Macs used to weigh 6.5+ pounds. As I said, has everyone gotten weaker over the course of the last couple of years? So much so that they can't carry a sandwich worth of extra weight?

But that is not an argument unique to the MBP. You could argue that anyone who buys the Sony Vaio Z is insane because you can get better specs in a package only a bit larger and a few pounds heavier.

Buying a computer is always about getting the MOST for your money. Macs, as a whole, offer very little for the money. The Core i7 MacBook Pro literally costs nearly 2.5x as much as that Toshiba. You're getting half the video memory and a slower processor, and not even half the connectivity.

Again, you seem to think that your own particular needs dictate what should matter to other people as well.

"needs needs needs" People always going on saying cheesy things like "the MacBook Pro fits my needs". So your need is to spend 2.5x as much on a system that weighs only as much less as your lunch weighs and is significantly less powerful?

Personally, I do not want to carry a 6.5-7 pound laptop with significantly lower battery life. It is also true that you can carry around external batteries, but of course that adds to the travel weight too.

Because an extra pound makes all the difference in the world, right? Like I said, plugs are everywhere. If you're carrying your system in your hands in this modern age, you are ASKING for trouble. Not just from people who would love to steal it, but from the elements too. If you're caught outside in a sudden unexpected rain with your system in your hands then you're SOL.

If you're carrying your system in a bag, as you should be, it's more secure on your person from muggers and from the elements, and it eliminates the weight problem.

So why don't you just buy the Toshiba? Or are you also hoping to convince everyone here that that Toshiba (or other similar systems) are what they should choose and they are wrong to want a MBP?

Again, whats with this question of me buying the Toshiba? I don't need a new computer. I most certainly don't need an overpriced laptop. I have an iPad now, so I need a good desktop. Something Apple doesn't offer.

People are free to want whatever they want. But it is just a little on the stupid side to pay 2.5x more for a system that not only does less, but does it slower.

To put it in perspective, I could buy two of those Toshibas and still have money left over compared to just one MBP.

Or I could build a desktop thats better than the top end iMac, and buy a smaller notebook PC thats more powerful than the 13" MBP line, and still have money left over compared to that one Core i7 dual core MacBook Pro. And both that desktop and the laptop would have blu-ray drives WITH HDMI out!

It's $100 dollars cheaper than a computer a little over a year old and its like.. a lot faster. Am I crazy? Or do I think this update is really nothing to complain about?

A year is long time in technology. One technology year is about the same as 10 years for everything else.

The MacBook Pro purchased in Feb. 2009 didn't even keep pace with systems released around that time costing half as much. Now, a little over a year later, the MacBook Pro doesn't keep pace with systems costing 2.5x less.

Rocketman
Apr 13, 2010, 05:41 PM
The 13" MBP is C2D, not Core i5. You got hosed.

Yet another person who confuses "it's not worth it to me" with "it's not worth it".

For a huge percentage of computer users, C2D is more than adequate. Heck, that system is faster than the one I use every day - and I don't have any immediate need to upgrade. At some point, it's no loner about the specs - and for a large percentage of users, we've reached that point.

I was being facitious. My main question is if an i7 is worth a $400 upgrade charge over an i5, disregarding entirely for the moment the marginal cost to Apple is about $50.

I am the guy who states it is a truism that, "The more you pay the more it is worth."

Rocketman

PB G4 user 10.4.11

Xibalba
Apr 13, 2010, 05:43 PM
I'll prob pick up a 13", it's time to replace the CD MB...

I think lot's of people will be moaning about these updates. Oh wait it's Macrumors, of course they will...

this truly boggles my mind as well - complaining about a new product release is just juvenile. i believe that the majority of the fools here on MR hang out in the news threads - i have seen very helpful and positive replies in the actual true forums...

Kristenn
Apr 13, 2010, 05:46 PM
A year is long time in technology. One technology year is about the same as 10 years for everything else.

The MacBook Pro purchased in Feb. 2009 didn't even keep pace with systems released around that time costing half as much. Now, a little over a year later, the MacBook Pro doesn't keep pace with systems costing 2.5x less.

Plenty of laptops offered the same processor as mine and the same video card (but just discrete, not shared and a discrete)
Sure the MacBook Pro costed $300 more but it had better battery life and weighed a lot less. Higher quality display. I looked at both computers side to side and Apple's screen looked way better.

Also... does that Toshiba get 9 hours of battery life? I don't know about everyone else... but I use laptops for battery life. If its the fastest computer in the world and gets bad battery life I wont want it.

Just saying =/

apolloa
Apr 13, 2010, 05:49 PM
hahahahahaha:D:D:D:D:D
at all the sad muppets on here bitching. You do realize that you are SUPPOSED to be intelligent, you have the unique gift of deciding what YOU want to do. You don't follow a heard of sheep....

So go and buy a PC?



I shall be saving hard now, I want that top end 15" with a 512GB SSD!!! Sweet, 9 hours battery life, brilliant, and they've put in Nvidia's Optimus, result. Hahaha oh how I remember the posts on here stating as fact Apple would NEVER put Optimus in, it's Windows ONLY hahaha.

And thank God they've kept the same chassis size, don't need new cases and bags. Well done Apple.

lilo777
Apr 13, 2010, 05:50 PM
Oh dear. I suggest you go and read up on the differences between the Nehalem and Penryn architectures and interconnects. QuickPath and HyperThreading, better power efficiencies, better virtualization support. Seriously, go and Google it.

Re-phrasing one old anecdote: Apple fans do not read, Apple fans write!

MorphingDragon
Apr 13, 2010, 05:51 PM
Look out children, here comes the evil Mr Opinionated...

iMacmatician
Apr 13, 2010, 05:54 PM
Because an extra pound makes all the difference in the world, right? Like I said, plugs are everywhere. If you're carrying your system in your hands in this modern age, you are ASKING for trouble. Not just from people who would love to steal it, but from the elements too. If you're caught outside in a sudden unexpected rain with your system in your hands then you're SOL.

If you're carrying your system in a bag, as you should be, it's more secure on your person from muggers and from the elements, and it eliminates the weight problem. Also, a bag and associated stuff in it (in my bag there's the charger, some papers, some CDs, and some other stuff) adds to the weight of the notebook + bag. So an extra pound takes up a smaller proportion of the weight of a notebook + bag (+ stuff) compared to just the notebook.

Also... does that Toshiba get 9 hours of battery life? I don't know about everyone else... but I use laptops for battery life. If its the fastest computer in the world and gets bad battery life I wont want it./I like battery life but if I really needed high performance in a notebook I would be willing to sacrifice battery life. Less time needed for a CPU-intensive task to take place means less time the notebook is running at max CPU power.

Unless I'm missing something, high TDP components shouldn't be much of an issue when they're idle, that is, if they have good idle and power saving states. Low battery life of power notebooks tell me that's not a reality right now…

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 05:59 PM
Again, what 15.6" system are we talking about? The Toshiba I linked is 16" and the MBP is 15.4". 1366x768 is a 16x9 resolution. 1440x900 on the MBP is 16x10. 16x9 is always better because EVERYTHING is formatted for 16x9.


Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Toshiba isn't giving you that 16:9 panel because it's "ALWAYS better". They're giving it to you because it's ALWAYS cheaper.

But by all means, go on living your fantasy.

iMacmatician
Apr 13, 2010, 06:04 PM
Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Toshiba isn't giving you that 16:9 panel because it's "ALWAYS better". They're giving it to you because it's ALWAYS cheaper.

But by all means, go on living your fantasy.For a certain diagonal size 16:9 gives slightly more horizontal space, slightly less vertical space, and slightly less total area. However in practice it depends on what size and resolution you move from and to.

However, 1440x900 to 1366x768 is a resolution downgrade in both directions.

Many movies are wider than 16:9 anyway.

pytter
Apr 13, 2010, 06:05 PM
Wow, UK got screwed, $1199 -> £ + 17.5% is 915. Yesterday the price was £918, good price match, today it's gone to £999. Almost 10% up. Anyone know what the 15" prices were yesterday?

Check the John Lewis site for the last model prices in the UK - they have yet to update to their stock list to the new models and prices.

arcite
Apr 13, 2010, 06:06 PM
Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Toshiba isn't giving you that 16:9 panel because it's "ALWAYS better". They're giving it to you because it's ALWAYS cheaper.

But by all means, go on living your fantasy.

Oh the hilarity. I'm on a toshiba right now! It has a 16 screen, shiny slippery keys, a fan that is loud and always on, a cd drive that is noisy, weighs around 8 pounds, has a battery that lasts a little over 2 hours, and a screen with poor viewing angles (and don't even mention color accuracy). Oh yea, and its PLASTIC...shiny, glossy, gaudy plastic. And it creaks and flexes every time I touch it. Oh and the touchpad is hidious. Not to mention it runs on Vista.

But go ahead and be a cheap bastard and buy your toshiba...more macbooks for the rest of us I say! :cool:

...but is it really necessary to whine about it?

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 06:07 PM
Hahaha oh how I remember the posts on here stating as fact Apple would NEVER put Optimus in, it's Windows ONLY hahaha.


Umm.

Those people were right.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/inside-apples-automatic-gpu-switching.ars

dcoux09
Apr 13, 2010, 06:07 PM
My Two Cents:

At first I was really pissed about the 13" MBP, but really, I have a core 2 duo now with 4GB of ram and a 120GB hard drive on my white MB (which cracks all the time), and it certainly meets my needs very nicely (except for the hard drive). I'm going to upgrade when the "free iPod" promo starts for college students to the 13" unibody. Although it would be nice to see a new processor, I highly highly doubt that I would have seen a difference. I'm not a gamer, photo-editor, movie maker, so the 13" update is more than adequate with me: I'd rather keep the cost down than to get a minor boost in performance. I'm also confident in saying that most serious editors, or "Pros," would rather have the real estate of a 15" or 17" notebook, so I'm sure the i5 and i7's were very welcomed.

I'm really happy with the mini displayport carrying audio and being HDMI compatible, that was a nice little change. All in all, I feel like I'm buying the same machine as yesterday, only cheaper, with a .14 GHz boost, 2 gigs of extra ram, and $50 less for a 500 GB hard drive. Since I'm not an intensive user, I think opting for 8 gigs of ram would be overextending myself, but it is a nice drop in price to upgrade, costing $200 less than before. If this computer can last me 3-4 years until Macs have a touch screen and USB 4.0, I'd be happy. I don't ever picture Macs getting Blu-Ray.

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 06:15 PM
For a certain diagonal size 16:9 gives slightly more horizontal space, slightly less vertical space, and slightly less total area.
For most common laptop sizes, it's less than half an inch gain horizontal, an inch or more loss vertical, and what I'd call substantially less area (10%).

Consider the example of a 1920x1080 (16:10) vs 1920x1200 (16x9) panel.

The 16:10 has 2,073,600 pixels. The 16:9 has 2,304,000. That's 10% more. So again, suggesting that losing 10% of your screen real estate and resolution is "ALWAYS better" is just plain deluded.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328931,00.asp

jragosta
Apr 13, 2010, 06:15 PM
I was being facitious. My main question is if an i7 is worth a $400 upgrade charge over an i5, disregarding entirely for the moment the marginal cost to Apple is about $50.

It might help if you dealt with facts rather than making things up. Apple charges $200 more for the i7, not $400.

If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it (as if you were going to buy any Apple products, anyway). It's called a free market. If no one buys the i7, then Apple will probably lower the price differential. If lots of people buy it, then the price differential is OK.

Odd man out or not, I hope you realize 32nm is better than 45nm. You do know that right?

What? But 45 is bigger than 32!!!!

Or at least that's the way the Apple bashers work. It's all about numbers. Bigger numbers (weight, battery consumption) must be better.

Has anyone ordered it online?
When they say 1-3 days shipping.
Does that mean they'll start shipping it within the next 1-3 days or it'll arrive to my front door in 1-3 days?

No, it means what it says. It will typically SHIP within 1-3 days (but I think there's also a 1 day cushion for processing). If you need it by Friday, you'd better head to your local Apple Store or other retailer who carries it.



16x9 is always better because EVERYTHING is formatted for 16x9.

And that's why arguing the the more avid Apple haters is like banging your head against a wall. 16:9 is ALWAYS better than 16:10? So I could take an older 16:9 TN screen with fluorescent backlights, low resolution, and a 50% failure rate in the first month and it would be better than a new IPS 16:10 screen with LED backlighting near zero failure rate, and high resolution?

When will you understand that you can't reduce the quality of an item to a single number?

ryero
Apr 13, 2010, 06:19 PM
No, it means what it says. It will typically SHIP within 1-3 days (but I think there's also a 1 day cushion for processing). If you need it by Friday, you'd better head to your local Apple Store or other retailer who carries it.


Thanks for the heads up!
I'll probably just do that. Head to the apple store on Saturday or Friday.
:D

jragosta
Apr 13, 2010, 06:19 PM
I like battery life but if I really needed high performance in a notebook I would be willing to sacrifice battery life. Less time needed for a CPU-intensive task to take place means less time the notebook is running at max CPU power.

Unless I'm missing something, high TDP components shouldn't be much of an issue when they're idle, that is, if they have good idle and power saving states.

That might be true - if you never ran your computer above idle. Of course, if you don't push the computer, why do you need more power than a Core 2 Duo, anyway?

You have to design a system for MAXIMUM power usage, not idle power. If you want something more powerful than the i7 used in the MacBook Pro, you're going to have to give up something - probably weight and size. Apple has decided that they'll sell more systems in the MBP format than in a larger, heavier format. If they're wrong, the market will tell them.

apolloa
Apr 13, 2010, 06:23 PM
Umm.

Those people were right.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/inside-apples-automatic-gpu-switching.ars

Oh cool, so it's taken Nvidia's Optimus technology and made it better then! :D

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 06:24 PM
Also, a bag and associated stuff in it (in my bag there's the charger, some papers, some CDs, and some other stuff) adds to the weight of the notebook + bag. So an extra pound takes up a smaller proportion of the weight of a notebook + bag (+ stuff) compared to just the notebook.

CDs?

An extra pound isn't anything in the long term. The notebook I linked to weighs the same as the 17" MacBook Pro.

If you're talking 3 or 4 pounds, then use, that can change things. But one pound? Thats nothing.

Sorry, you've just plain lost your marbles. If you honestly think that losing 10% of your vertical screen real estate is ALWAYS better so you don't have to look at tiny black bars when you watch a movie on your laptop, you probably *should* be looking into something like that el cheapo Toshiba.

As I said, everything these days is formatted for 16x9. And I hate to burst your bubble, but generally speaking, 16x9 resolutions offer higher pixel counts than 16x10. Obviously 1440x900 is a higher resolution than 1366x768, but you're getting a proper aspect ratio. When comparing similar resolutions, like 1600x900 to 1440x900, the 16x9 resolution always comes out on top.

16:9 gives you the same width as a 16:10 screen with substantially less vertical space. Vertical space is important for just about everything you do on a laptop, save for maybe watching a widescreen movie.

Not true at all. A 13" 16x9 screen running at 1366x768 will give me a higher pixel count than the MacBook's 16x9 1280x800 display. So I lose absolutely nothing. I gain everything.

Also, this argument doesn't work anyway. The menu bar in OS X is permanent. It's always eating up a good amount of screen space. That menu bar itself can eat up any "extra" vertical resolution. The dock can disappear too but then its essentially useless. So your argument doesn't hold any water anyway because OS X's UI eats up any advantages.

And explain to me, how is vertical resolution so important? I find the wider 16x9 resolutions to be more useful than having a funky 16x10 resolution that nothing fits in.

And that's why arguing the the more avid Apple haters is like banging your head against a wall. 16:9 is ALWAYS better than 16:10? So I could take an older 16:9 TN screen with fluorescent backlights, low resolution, and a 50% failure rate in the first month and it would be better than a new IPS 16:10 screen with LED backlighting near zero failure rate, and high resolution?

Zero failure rate on an Apple product? Now I know you're trying to be a comedian.

LED backlighting does NOTHING to enhance the image quality in Apple products. They're using edge-lit LEDs. Want to talk about image quality improvements? Have a look at the Dell products that use RGBLED.

IPS is overrated too. I have a 23" desktop display that uses a TN panel. Same viewing angles as Apple displays, but significantly faster response time (no ghosting whatsoever), higher contrast ratio, same color response, and it cost less. Oh and it has HDMI in too.

I love my iPad and it has a beautiful display. But seeing the ghosting artifacts on it proves to me that IPS is all marketing fluff and a reason to charge a lot more than it should cost.

once
Apr 13, 2010, 06:27 PM
If they're wrong, the market will tell them.

nobody is saying they're completely wrong. the market only tells them when apple screws up big time. but that doesn't mean that they're close to perfect or the best.

it's not a black and white world.

iMacmatician
Apr 13, 2010, 06:31 PM
For most common laptop sizes, it's less than half an inch gain horizontal, an inch or more loss vertical, and what I'd call substantially less area (10%).

Consider the example of a 1920x1080 (16:10) vs 1920x1200 (16x9) panel.

The 16:10 has 2,073,600 pixels. The 16:9 has 2,304,000. That's 10% more. So again, suggesting that losing 10% of your screen real estate and resolution is "ALWAYS better" is just plain deluded.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328931,00.asp1440x900 » 1600x900 is the only exception I can think of. There's also 1280x800 » 1366x768 and 1920x1200 » 2048x1152 which are give-and-takes.

That might be true - if you never ran your computer above idle. Of course, if you don't push the computer, why do you need more power than a Core 2 Duo, anyway?For the times when I *do* push my computer? The situation I described gives low power usage when I'm not running intensive tasks and high performance when necessary. As opposed to not-as-high-performance with a CPU with a lower TDP.

CDs?

An extra pound isn't anything in the long term. The notebook I linked to weighs the same as the 17" MacBook Pro.

If you're talking 3 or 4 pounds, then use, that can change things. But one pound? Thats nothing. I wasn't disagreeing with you, my point was that a 1 pound difference is less of a proportional difference when there's more total weight involved.

apolloa
Apr 13, 2010, 06:35 PM
IPS is overrated too. I have a 23" desktop display that uses a TN panel. Same viewing angles as Apple displays, but significantly faster response time (no ghosting whatsoever), higher contrast ratio, same color response, and it cost less. Oh and it has HDMI in too.

I love my iPad and it has a beautiful display. But seeing the ghosting artifacts on it proves to me that IPS is all marketing fluff and a reason to charge a lot more than it should cost.

Erm, just to let you know mate pretty much most HD televisions have IPS panels, Panasonic for one like mine does. So you have to realise that your are stating IPS is rubbish tech in COMPUTERS, NOT in general, otherwise most TV manufacturers have got it wrong for the last 3 years or so :rolleyes:

IPS also is to do with viewing angles, not affect ghosting? Please explain why you think IPS is causing ghosting on the screen?

From Panasonics website:

IPS stands for In-Plane-Switching. It was co-developed by key manufacturers including Panasonic, Hitachi and Toshiba. IPS mode system technology is used in TFT LCD displays. It delivers a very wide viewing angle of up to 170 degrees, both horizontally and vertically, with minimal gray-scale inversion (ie, when the screen starts to look blacked out when viewed from the sides). IPS works because the liquid crystal molecules inside the display rotate and therefore remain parallel to the substrate when voltage is applied. This results in perfect orientation of the crystals. An 'Advanced Super' (AS)-IPS mode system is also available for further LCD picture improvements.

Mindinversion
Apr 13, 2010, 06:37 PM
and they've put in Nvidia's Optimus

No, they haven't.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/inside-apples-automatic-gpu-switching.ars

It's not Optimus, it's their own in house version of it.

once
Apr 13, 2010, 06:38 PM
So I lose absolutely nothing. I gain everything.

The dock can disappear too but then its essentially useless. So your argument doesn't hold any water anyway because OS X's UI eats up any advantages.

And explain to me, how is vertical resolution so important? I find the wider 16x9 resolutions to be more useful than having a funky 16x10 resolution that nothing fits in.

I totally agree with you about 16x9.. but you have the worst reasons for why you backed it up.

Nobody buys a 13" laptop over a 15" purely for extra pixels. You don't "gain everything" hhahah. You get those extra pixels in a tiny ass 13" display (if what you were originally going for was a large 15").

hahah I always hide my dock. how does that make it "essentially useless"? Cuz I dont get to stare at it's pretty face all day? Yeah right, hiding the dock makes it useless... gotcha.

And vertical resolution is important for so many apps (web browsing, email) where you're reading a text vertically. It's weird that you're seriously questioning it.

And I don't know what kind of apps you run that can't dynamically resize to 16x10, but that's not normal. You should uninstall those apps. I can understand that argument for really small apps like a netbook that runs a tiny ass screen where you cant expand the app large enough to see all the buttons.

damn, you are an embarrassment when it comes to explaining why 16x10 sucks.

MorphingDragon
Apr 13, 2010, 06:39 PM
I love my iPad

I find that VERY hard to believe.