PDA

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




Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

AidenShaw
Apr 13, 2010, 06:40 PM
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.

Blu-ray superiority depends on the apparent size of the screen, not the absolute size. Mentioning the screen size without including the viewing distance is not meaningful.

THX recommends the ideal viewing distance to be about 1.4 times the screen diagonal. Your 15" laptop at 21" away is visually just as big (and demonstrates BD quality and resolution just as well) as sitting 7 feet away from your 60" screen.

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/images/articles/Singer60Chart.jpg (click to enlarge)

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/HDTV_Viewing_Distance.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance



once
Apr 13, 2010, 06:40 PM
Have a look at the Dell products that use RGBLED

oh and after all that, you brought the rgb led. hhehe it's true, that thing rocks. but good thing you didnt expand on its reasons for rocking. I'ld probably be embarrassed to read them.

theanimala
Apr 13, 2010, 06:41 PM
Blu-ray superiority depends on the apparent size of the screen, not the absolute size. Mentioning the screen size without including the viewing distance is not meaningful.

THX recommends the ideal viewing distance to be about 1.4 times the screen diagonal. Your 15" laptop at 21" away is visually just as big (and demonstrates BD quality and resolution just as well) the same as as sitting 7 feet away from your 60" screen.

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/images/articles/Singer60Chart.jpg (click to enlarge)

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/HDTV_Viewing_Distance.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Agreed!

once
Apr 13, 2010, 06:43 PM
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:

I'm not trying to disagree with you over this.. I'm genuinely just asking..

Isn't the difference between why IPS would be good enough for tv's (but not computers) because tvs are so much bigger and ppl sit on couches to watch them? Compared to laptops where they're tiny screens that you're moving around a lot so it would be much more noticeable if IPS sucked.

bob5820
Apr 13, 2010, 06:58 PM
I wouldn't be concerned given that the difference between Core 2 and the i5 or i3 (I doubt you'll see the i7 in a 13.3 inch form factor) is marginal at best - I've compared what I have to the refresh and its of only of great improvement if you haven't upgraded in a couple of years otherwise you're better off sticking to what you have and waiting until next year which should hopefully result in the massive change.

From what I understand we're on the minor release of the Intel CPU's and the next release will include major improvements so unless you really need to upgrade you might as well wait till then :D

Seems PCmag has a different take on the performance delta between the Core2 Duo and the i5.

"My preliminary testing showed an impressive improvement from the older Core 2 Duo architecture on some quick spreadsheet tests, with improvements typically in the 10- to 20-percent range, depending on the test, on two machines with the same clock speed."

The i5/i7 represent a fairly major departure from the Core Duo architecture, hardly a minor revision.

bob5820
Apr 13, 2010, 07:02 PM
"the last memory bonus is that Core i7 supports triple-channel memory"


http://gizmodo.com/5099060/giz-explains-why-intels-core-i7-processor-is-a-beautiful-monster



27" imac *2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7* is 2199.00
15" macbookpro *2.66GHz Intel Core i7* is 2199.00 A bit irrelevant when the MBP only has two DIMM slots

taus64
Apr 13, 2010, 07:07 PM
I am very excited, i just purchased my first Mac. I got the new 17 inch Macbook Pro with the Core i7 4gb and 500gb serial drive @ 7200 rpm. It should be shipping out in the next couple of days and i can't wait. Since it is my first Mac i was wanting to know if their are any must have accessories i need to get. Thanks in advance for any help.

alhasa
Apr 13, 2010, 07:07 PM
Price up again in the UK where I work. I'd say it was unbelievable but it's every time Apple release something now over here that the price goes up. The pound has rallied from 1.30 to the dollar to about 1.55 since the last update too so they should have been cheaper than they were!. Tw@s. If only there was a greater choice in OS's I'd give Apple the bullet at the drop of a hat.

My thoughts exactly. Very annoyed that I waited 6 month for a price increase!

Justinf79
Apr 13, 2010, 07:14 PM
Seems like some very nice updates for the 15/17" MBPs. :D

troop231
Apr 13, 2010, 07:22 PM
Agreed!

x2 Interesting info :cool:

Mr. Jobs
Apr 13, 2010, 07:30 PM
its good to see that the macrumors community is through bitching and is happy! this update is pretty significant, better bettery, better processor, better graphics... do u want it to wipe your butt for you too? if so then go back to PC

stefan15
Apr 13, 2010, 07:37 PM
Well.. I don't necessarily agree on the value. I think these are really overpriced machines. It was between this and a Dell Studio XPS 16. Thing is, I fully plan on selling it when USB3 is implemented. So I bought the mac.. simply because by 2011 the resale value will still be high, whereas the Dell won't be worth anything. In the end it probably will balance out value wise.

Bought a 15" MBP, i7, 128gb SSD, HD antiglare.

Eric S.
Apr 13, 2010, 07:41 PM
its good to see that the macrumors community is through bitching and is happy! this update is pretty significant, better bettery, better processor, better graphics... do u want it to wipe your butt for you too? if so then go back to PC

Would a PC wipe my butt? I'd have to check that out!

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 07:47 PM
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

Actually, most TVs don't. The refresh rate is too long and people would complain about blurry images.

IPS also is to do with viewing angles, not affect ghosting? Please explain why you think IPS is causing ghosting on the screen?

Geez, do I have to explain everything to everyone on this site?

IPS panels, compared to TN, have significantly lower refresh rates. Apple was using IPS panels with 24ms response times while everyone else had moved on to TN panels with 8ms or lower response times. My current desktop display has a 2ms gtg response time. There is NO ghosting. None. Moving images are every bit as sharp as my old CRT display. My MacBook, on the other hand, with a 16ms response time, has ghosting in everything from moving windows to even just moving the mouse cursor.

The thing is that Apple fans seem to be satisfied with high amounts of ghosting.

My HDTV in my living room has a full 170 degree viewing angle, but its a TN panel with an 8ms response time. No ghosting on it whatsoever.

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").

I never said anything like that. Don't make it sound like I did.

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.

Because its easy to miss alerts from apps, and its an inconvenience to bring it up to access stacks menus, since going through Finder is a pain in the ass for getting to apps.

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.

Yes, thats true. But who seriously drags their browser window to full vertical resolution? Thats stupid and wastes space.

And I don't know what kind of apps you run that can't dynamically resize to 16x10, but that's not normal.

Games. Movies. Video content on websites such as youtube.

damn, you are an embarrassment when it comes to explaining why 16x10 sucks.

And you should learn to read. Because you're responding to things that I didn't say or imply.

Isn't the difference between why IPS would be good enough for tv's (but not computers) because tvs are so much bigger and ppl sit on couches to watch them? Compared to laptops where they're tiny screens that you're moving around a lot so it would be much more noticeable if IPS sucked.

Modern IPS panels still have too low of a response time for video.

Well.. I don't necessarily agree on the value. I think these are really overpriced machines. It was between this and a Dell Studio XPS 16. Thing is, I fully plan on selling it when USB3 is implemented. So I bought the mac.. simply because by 2011 the resale value will still be high, whereas the Dell won't be worth anything. In the end it probably will balance out value wise.

Bought a 15" MBP, i7, 128gb SSD, HD antiglare.

Says who? Unless you sell it on this forum, no person outside of Apple fanboy circles will pay even half new for what you paid for it. I hate to break it to you, but outside of Apple fans, that system will have very little value next year. Even now it's not worth half of what you paid for it.

Eidorian
Apr 13, 2010, 07:52 PM
Actually, most TVs don't. The refresh rate is too long and people would coMy HDTV in my living room has a full 170 degree viewing angle, but its a TN panel with an 8ms response time. No ghosting on it whatsoever.
What model television?

zMudvayne
Apr 13, 2010, 07:57 PM
Alright guys, I've been up since 7AM this morning reviewing the new machines... been waiting for this day, and excited to finally be placing an order for a replacement to my SantaRose 15"MBP.

I've decided I'm going to order a 15" 2.66 Core i7 MBP with a 500GB HDD @7200 and base specs beyond that... but I can't decide if I should upgrade to the high-res or not? I'm very tempted to because the price is reasonable and it seems a large jump in resolution, and I'm happy to have a feature rather than not... but I've heard from readers that the resolution causes problems with text and other visuals... Should I be concerned? I can't find a high-res demo in store to check out.

AidenShaw
Apr 13, 2010, 08:02 PM
Since it is my first Mac i was wanting to know if their are any must have accessories i need to get.

AppleCare.

Seriously - laptops lead a hard life. They are the only things that I buy (and recommend) extended warranties for. If offered, go for one that covers accidental damage as well. If you drop it or run over it with the car, it's nice to have that covered.

KPATT18
Apr 13, 2010, 08:02 PM
Alright guys, I've been up since 7AM this morning reviewing the new machines... been waiting for this day, and excited to finally be placing an order for a replacement to my SantaRose 15"MBP.

I've decided I'm going to order a 15" 2.66 Core i7 MBP with a 500GB HDD @7200 and base specs beyond that... but I can't decide if I should upgrade to the high-res or not? I'm very tempted to because the price is reasonable and it seems a large jump in resolution, and I'm happy to have a feature rather than not... but I've heard from readers that the resolution causes problems with text and other visuals... Should I be concerned? I can't find a high-res demo in store to check out.

I echo this question as I am in the same boat. I'm ready to buy and it sure seemed like the i7 15 was the best bang for the buck. ANYONE's imput on these questions would be great!

KPATT18
Apr 13, 2010, 08:03 PM
AppleCare.

Seriously - laptops lead a hard life. They are the only things that I buy (and recommend) extended warranties for. If offered, go for one that covers accidental damage as well. If you drop it or run over it with the car, it's nice to have that covered.

Does Applecare cover accidental damage????

seancusick
Apr 13, 2010, 08:07 PM
If Apple wants to keep the pros on the pro machines, they need to offer blu Ray burning/authoring. While online HD streaming may be fine for watching a movie, many of us using these computers for a living needed blu Ray 2 years ago. Jobs is being thick and apple is becoming a consumer company.

While many here may not see a need, pro's who are the target audience certainly do. At least make it a option, or support external dives in the os.

NOTORIOUS187
Apr 13, 2010, 08:09 PM
Apple produces great hardware and software. In the "old day" we knew that the premium pricing was due to the PowerPC processors, advanced graphic processors, and overall less expensive to maintain.

Fast forward to today and both Macs and (higher end) PCs have Intel processors, and NVIDA graphic processors. PC do require all the anti-this and anti-that software (which still does not prevent a lot of things from happening). However, the Macs still run at about a 50% price premium.

I use both a Mac and PC. Its my saying that "PC's don't include an IT department and Mac's don't require one." I have to constantly make sure my PC is up to date with Windows Updates, AVG Pro app and virus database updates, run AVG full scan's, defrag the hard drive, and use CCleaner on a daily basis to clean up crap and fix Windows Registry errors.

Today, Apple announced new laptops. However, when I compare the specs to my new Toshiba Satellite laptop (A505-S6033), there are few differences. This is the second Toshiba laptop that I've purchased for business use in the last 9 months. The last one has an LED backlit 17" screen, the new one does not. All Mac's are LED backlit, which is better. My new Toshiba has an Intel i7 processor and NVIDIA GeForce 310M graphics. The Mac has a FASTER i7 processor and slightly better NVIDA GPU, ... but at twice the price of the Toshiba.

Apple could seriously do better by offering the significantly less expensive, though slightly slower, i7 processor that my Toshiba has (1.8GHz processor speed with Turbo Boost up to 2.8GHz). The price difference between the 1.8 GHz in my Toshiba and Apple's top offering 2.66 GHz is probably around an "extra" $200. I'm sure that plenty of people would be will to purchase the i7 MacBook Pro with the less expensive option of a slower -- though still i7 -- processor.

One thing that I still can not understand is that none of the MacBooks have a number pad on the side of the keyboard. As a web designer, I do have to play with plenty of spreadsheets and this requires using a number pad. Yes, you can add a USB number pad, but it should be on the laptop.

As for the software -- Apple is certainly the BEST! I've been using Windows 7 on the new laptop and there are issues with it working with many apps (older version of FedEx Ship Manager) and getting it to work with some printers such as DYMO label printer and Zebra thermal shipping label printer.
Sorry, but bringing a Toshiba laptop into a Macbook Pro thread is like bringing a Volkswagen Beetle to a drag race versus a Bugatti Veyron.

Toshiba makes crappy hardware, plain and simple. An acquaintance recently purchased a Toshiba Satellite laptop. The DVD drive stopped working after 2 days. The store would not take it back and said it was a manufacturer problem. Toshiba had to have the laptop sent in and the drive replaced, with no sort of retribution for the customer losing access to their brand new laptop for over a week. Terrible product and customer service.

stefan15
Apr 13, 2010, 08:10 PM
Says who? Unless you sell it on this forum, no person outside of Apple fanboy circles will pay even half new for what you paid for it. I hate to break it to you, but outside of Apple fans, that system will have very little value next year. Even now it's not worth half of what you paid for it.
Don't presume to know anything about my locale. Here, for whatever reason, there's still the "Dell = bad, Apple = good" stigma. Doing a quick kijiji search shows that Apple machines hold their value much better than Dell. I do not expect it to have much resale, but certainly more than a Dell machine. You say "not even half" like it's a bad thing. 25% in a year is fine.

stefan15
Apr 13, 2010, 08:15 PM
I've decided I'm going to order a 15" 2.66 Core i7 MBP with a 500GB HDD @7200 and base specs beyond that... but I can't decide if I should upgrade to the high-res or not? I'm very tempted to because the price is reasonable and it seems a large jump in resolution, and I'm happy to have a feature rather than not... but I've heard from readers that the resolution causes problems with text and other visuals... Should I be concerned? I can't find a high-res demo in store to check out.
I grabbed the same, but did opt for the high-res anti glare. I think it's a no brainer especially if you are using photoshop or audio production software. DO NOT worry about text.. whoever says small text is a problem is just ignorant of the solution which is font scaling. You can scale up the fonts and maintain your screen real estate. Do it!

EDIT: here's a popular tool for this: http://www.bresink.com/osx/0TinkerTool/screenshots.html

dreven79
Apr 13, 2010, 08:16 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.


Yeah i agree 100%, . I'll take 16:10 screen anyday for laptops. So glad they did not reduce it to 16:9. 16:10 is much easier for doing work. Watching movies on laptops is secondary for me. You have your big screen tv for movies so i dont know why these ppl are complaining..

Mal67
Apr 13, 2010, 08:26 PM
2.93 and 3.06 GHz Mac minis anyone?
They'll be next but hopefully they will make the jump to i-somethings as opposed to fast core 2s.
I would love to see a i5 mini - might happen...eventually

satcomer
Apr 13, 2010, 08:39 PM
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.

No Blu-Ray no sale! :D

bob5820
Apr 13, 2010, 08:46 PM
I am very excited, i just purchased my first Mac. I got the new 17 inch Macbook Pro with the Core i7 4gb and 500gb serial drive @ 7200 rpm. It should be shipping out in the next couple of days and i can't wait. Since it is my first Mac i was wanting to know if their are any must have accessories i need to get. Thanks in advance for any help.Congrats on the new MBP. The only accessory that I would consider must have would be an external drive for back ups.

knownikko
Apr 13, 2010, 08:50 PM
As I said, everything these days is formatted for 16x9.
What does "everything" imply, other than video, which fits perfectly fine in a 16:10 panel and displays as effectively the same size as it would on a 16:10 panel?
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.
"proper" for what? TV shows and the ~40% or so of movies that are shot in 16:9?

When comparing similar resolutions, like 1600x900 to 1440x900, the 16x9 resolution always comes out on top.

So you're saying that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are not "similar resolutions"? "Always" and "never" are the words of fundamentalist fools.

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.
You lose vertical space, actually. There you go with those silly absolutes again.

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.

lol. So your argument against 16:10 screens is that Apple's OS is inefficient in the vertical dimension, therefore they should move to 16:9 screens that lose even more vertical space? Your dock argument is exactly why I've had my dock firmly planted on the side of the screen since day one.

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.
Everything I do on a computer short of watching video (which is the _only_ benefit you've been able to come up with) involves vertical screen real estate. We read from top to bottom. Take a look at a page of this thread that's some 40 posts long. What is the extra width gaining you in reading this exchange? Not a thing. What is it gaining you on nearly *any* web page, which are almost universally optimized to be viewed on screens no more than 1280 pixels wide?

Ever try editing a photo shot in landscape on a 16:10 panel?

Until you get to very high resolutions there's not really enough room for true side-by-side apps on a 16:9 OR 16:10 screen.

Fact of the matter is, 16:9 screens are good for video. 16:10 screens are better for just about everything else one would use a computer for.

Since this thread is about computers and not TVs...


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.

lol. Another pseudo-fact that shows you really should have bought a portable DVD player instead of a computer. What you want is a video player.

tmofee
Apr 13, 2010, 09:06 PM
hmmm, next purchase is going to be an ipad, so by the time i have that paid off and i'm looking for a laptop, there will probably be another refresh ;)

even so, i dont think i could justify buying the 15" for i5 when it's only going to be a travel computer. C2D in the 13" may be a disappointment, but when i'm using my imac 24" for pretty much anything, i'd rather go a bit cheaper. i don't run many games on my machines anyways. just WoW and that runs on my imac just fine :P

apolloa
Apr 13, 2010, 09:06 PM
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.

Yeap your right. A better link for you:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/13/nvidia_says_new_macbook_pro_graphics_switching_isnt_optimus.html

fun173
Apr 13, 2010, 09:11 PM
Im so mad!!!!! I've waited so long for the 13" upgrade and all they do is add a discreet awesome graphics card, good clocked processor and a 10 hour battery?!?! How pathetic, they dident even put in the i3 while means nothing to me but i think i will notice the speed difference so i make angry comments like this. And also the chances are if they went with the i3 then there would be intel hd graphics most likely because of licensing issues!!

Cmon people if your complaining then don't buy the thing. Im not some sort of appledvocate (hahaha) but if your going to talk about how the sony is so much better than go buy it and then we can read your post later about how much better it is then later about how much the restocking fee is.

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 09:13 PM
I know the most obvious difference between the 2.4Ghz 15" mbp and the 2.53Ghz mbp is the Ghz and Hard drive capacity (in which u can upgrade anyways so thats not really a difference) But what could be small differences that go below the radar? I wanna make sure im buying the right one thats worth my money. Currently im pretty much going to buy the 2.4 Ghz cause CPU speeds are the only difference i see. But if anyone knows any detailed differences, please share! I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat of decisions!

PeeringInside
Apr 13, 2010, 09:29 PM
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.

What are some of the situations in which a 17" has too large a footprint? I have a 13" MacBook and a 15" Dell, and had been thinking that a 17" laptop would not be too big. But there are so many comments about the 15" MCP that I'm wondering if most people have found it to be oversized.

BTW, I'm planning to buy the MCP to replace my pre-Intel Mac Pro. I figured that since I'll be using the laptop in the home 90% of the time, it would be best to have the 17" MCP's larger display. Is there some best practice I'm not taking into account?

Hilmi Hamidi
Apr 13, 2010, 09:41 PM
Wow, everybody commenting in this thread every 2 seconds, I want in too! :D

Hal Itosis
Apr 13, 2010, 09:51 PM
Blu-ray superiority depends on the apparent size of the screen, not the absolute size. Mentioning the screen size without including the viewing distance is not meaningful.

THX recommends the ideal viewing distance to be about 1.4 times the screen diagonal. Your 15" laptop at 21" away is visually just as big (and demonstrates BD quality and resolution just as well) as sitting 7 feet away from your 60" screen.
Or sitting 5 inches away from a 3.5" screen (such as an iPod). :D RIGHT?

You're trying to get technical about something where it doesn't matter. The point is this: at 15", the difference in "superiority" simply isn't worth all this excitement. if I wanna watch Star Trek or whatever, I'm going in the living room, put my feet up and look at my large screen 1080p Toshiba. On something as small as 15"... the difference (and i'll say it again, because linking to Wikipedia won't be necessary) isn't all that and a bag of chips.

I never said there was no difference, just that i wouldn't consider paying for that difference on something as small as a laptop. At that size, it simply isn't the big deal everyone is trying so hard to make it out to be. [if it were, then no laptop without Blu-ray would ever get sold.]

irisheagle
Apr 13, 2010, 09:53 PM
Anybody know a good place to get a now-last-gen. macbook pro at a clearance price?

KPATT18
Apr 13, 2010, 09:57 PM
Anybody know a good place to get a now-last-gen. macbook pro at a clearance price?

Macmall has them about 13% off of Apple's retail.

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 10:03 PM
What does "everything" imply, other than video, which fits perfectly fine in a 16:10 panel and displays as effectively the same size as it would on a 16:10 panel?

16x9 video displays with black bars on a 16x10 panel. 2:35:1 video displays with black bars as large as on a 4x3 set.

And, again, high definition video, widescreen video on youtube, etc. is all 16x9. Everything just fits better in 16x9. I'm using my 16x9 display right now, MacBook hooked up to it. No way I could go back to 16x10.

"proper" for what? TV shows and the ~40% or so of movies that are shot in 16:9?

All high definition video is 16x9, the vast majority of movies are shot in some widescreen format. On 16x10 screens, 2.35:1 video displays with black bars as large as those on 4x3 TVs. Thanks to the wider horizontal resolution, you get significantly more screen space rather than a slightly taller screen.

So you're saying that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are not "similar resolutions"? "Always" and "never" are the words of fundamentalist fools.

Thats funny too, because the entire industry, other than Apple, has moved to 16x9 over the last couple of years. Apple is the only major manufacturer not shipping 16x9 across the board for everything.

So obviously the ENTIRE computer industry agrees with me. While only the overly vocal insignificantly small minority agrees with you ;)

You lose vertical space, actually. There you go with those silly absolutes again.

And I gain a good amount of horizontal space and a higher overall resolution. I gain more horizontal space than I lose vertical. Makes sense. Videos display properly and I have more overall room to work with.

lol. So your argument against 16:10 screens is that Apple's OS is inefficient in the vertical dimension, therefore they should move to 16:9 screens that lose even more vertical space? Your dock argument is exactly why I've had my dock firmly planted on the side of the screen since day one.

Again, you gain horizontal space with 16x9, video displays properly, and you get more space to work with. Whats the problem? And, again, the industry agrees with me. Everything except Apple's MacBook lines are 16x9.

Everything I do on a computer short of watching video (which is the _only_ benefit you've been able to come up with) involves vertical screen real estate. We read from top to bottom. Take a look at a page of this thread that's some 40 posts long. What is the extra width gaining you in reading this exchange? Not a thing. What is it gaining you on nearly *any* web page, which are almost universally optimized to be viewed on screens no more than 1280 pixels wide?

Yes, we do read from top to bottom. But with a 16x9 higher resolution display, I can fit MORE on screen. For instance, right now I have this webpage in its own little window off to the right. Next to it I have my Adium buddy list, my Mail window is open next to the webpage, and I have several IMs open in the surrounding space. All thanks to the WIDER display.

Ever try editing a photo shot in landscape on a 16:10 panel?

Photography is still 4x3. A wider display will benefit you there. Gives you more room to have your tools open around the picture.

Fact of the matter is, 16:9 screens are good for video. 16:10 screens are better for just about everything else one would use a computer for.

Which explains why everyone except Apple has moved to 16x9 displays as standard.

Oh and care to explain why the current iMacs are 16x9 now instead of 16x10?

Another pseudo-fact that shows you really should have bought a portable DVD player instead of a computer. What you want is a video player.

Nope. Like I said, the industry agrees with me. 16x9 is the better standard ;) Even Apple moved their flagship desktop to 16x9.

mosx
Apr 13, 2010, 10:05 PM
Or sitting 5 inches away from a 3.5" screen (such as an iPod). :D RIGHT?

You're trying to get technical about something where it doesn't matter. The point is this: at 15", the difference in "superiority" simply isn't worth all this excitement. if I wanna watch Star Trek or whatever, I'm going in the living room, put my feet up and look at my large screen 1080p Toshiba. On something as small as 15"... the difference (and i'll say it again, because linking to Wikipedia won't be necessary) isn't all that and a bag of chips.

I never said there was no difference, just that i wouldn't consider paying for that difference on something as small as a laptop. At that size, it simply isn't the big deal everyone is trying so hard to make it out to be. [if it were, then no laptop without Blu-ray would ever get sold.]

Well, thats your opinion. I want blu-ray because I do appreciate the difference on EVERY high definition display. Plus I shouldn't have to buy multiple copies of a movie just because my $2,200 dual core computer can't play a movie the $1,000 quad core computer I should have bought does.

FrankySavvy
Apr 13, 2010, 10:25 PM
I am a very satisfied Apple customer.

So I had purchased a June 2009 Macbook Pro on March 25th. It ran everything great, I was fully satisfied with everything about it.

So when I woke up this morning and realized the Macbook Pro's had finally updated, I was excited but also scared that Apple would not exchange my laptop for the new one because I was just passed the 14 day return policy.

When I got to the Apple Store in Lake Grove, New York...There was no trouble at all, they were more then willing to exchange my unit for an upgraded one, they also waived the restocking fee, plus the fact that the new high end 15" Macbook Pro is $100 cheaper, I got back $108 dollars. :p

The next part really floored me, they allowed me to data transfer with a firewire, without paying a dime!

Now thats customer service, way to go Apple!!!! :D

P.S the update was great, the Core i7 is noticeably faster then the one I exchanged and the GT330M runs amazing! I also love the added feature of the track pad of flicking. Its simple but works!!! :D

To all the haters!...

We all new this update was just gonna be a spec bump, Apple knows this design works, I am happy they did not change anything externally! and the internal choices and power balance of the Macbook Pro are perfect, Apple leads the laptop industry with power and battery!
:apple:;)

StuddedLeather
Apr 13, 2010, 10:30 PM
Well, thats your opinion. I want blu-ray because I do appreciate the difference on EVERY high definition display. Plus I shouldn't have to buy multiple copies of a movie just because my $2,200 dual core computer can't play a movie the $1,000 quad core computer I should have bought does.

You sound like a child.

Go and buy the $1,000 quad core and just shut-up. There you go problem solved. If you're going to complain and beat your keyboard up, its no need to think about it. Either buy the Mac or move on. :rolleyes:

Hal Itosis
Apr 13, 2010, 10:32 PM
I find that VERY hard to believe.
Fortunately for iPad lovers, their (our) enjoyment doesn't require your belief. :D
[re: your avatar. It is truly scary... but it's not polite to stare like that. Thanks.]



Well, thats your opinion.
True.

I want blu-ray because I do appreciate the difference on EVERY high definition display. Plus I shouldn't have to buy multiple copies of a movie just because my $2,200 dual core computer can't play a movie the $1,000 quad core computer I should have bought does.
If that's what matters to you, then fine. I think generally people use their computers for so many things... and some may not feel like staring at it for an additional 2 hours to watch a movie, which would be better enjoyed on a larger (MUCH larger) screen anyway.

::shrug::

As long as we can just agree that Blu-ray's "necessity" is a matter of opinion... and not some matter of universal truth. Would having Blu-ray be nice? Yeah maybe, for additional bragging rights i suppose. Don't think i'd actually use it that much myself. [doesn't it come with a lot of DRM baggage? stuff that gets all integrated into both hardware & software? idunno, whatever... if you need it then buy a PC i guess.]

MorphingDragon
Apr 13, 2010, 10:38 PM
Fortunately for iPad lovers, their (our) enjoyment doesn't require your belief. :D

A simple look at his comment history is why its hard to believe he owns or even likes an iPad.

[re: your avatar. It is truly scary... but it's not polite to stare like that. Thanks.]


I'm not staring.

KPATT18
Apr 13, 2010, 10:44 PM
I put my money where my mouth is:

Ships: 2 - 4 Business days
Delivers: Apr 16 - Apr 22 by 2-3 day shipping
Part number: Z0J6
Configuration
2.66GHz Intel Core i7
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
Microsoft Office Mac 2008 - Home and Student Edition
Accessory kit

Good enough update for me!

dreary
Apr 13, 2010, 10:44 PM
is it really true that the 2.53Ghz is capable of 3.00Ghz speeds?

KPATT18
Apr 13, 2010, 10:48 PM
is it really true that the 2.53Ghz is capable of 3.00Ghz speeds?

Dunno. I bought the 2.66 that's capable of 3.33..... Yahooooooo

Macmaniac
Apr 13, 2010, 11:06 PM
While everyone bitches about the new machines, I will get stuff accomplished with them, people need to settle down.

The fact that the 13in Core 2 Duo is still around means nothing for 99% of people.

If you want a real laptop get a 15in.

Great Dave
Apr 13, 2010, 11:07 PM
Who the hell uses optical mediums anymore...? Discs are going down just like floppies did...real fast...
Dude, what are you talking about?

This is a myth.

Actually, Blu-Ray sales are up over 65% compared to last year, and in the first two months of the year, more Blu-Rays were sold than movies downloaded all of last year. 2 months!

Has this become the new pissing war for Jobs? No two button mouse, no blu-ray!?!

Look - I am happy with that there was an update, but this is a joke of an update.

compare the new MBPs to the Dell Studio XPS, which have been out for awhile now-

we have 2 cores vs. 4 cores
we have 4MB cache vs. 6/8MB cache
we have 1066 DDR-3 vs. 1333 DDR-3
we have up to 512MB graphics vs 1GB
we have up to 1680x1050 vs full hd

they have more ports, e.g. we have sd slot vs 8 in 1
they express card, sata, etc.

they have blu-ray
and the stupid Dell still costs less!

we have a little lighter system and I assume a better battery life

but again at least we have updates...

oddfactor
Apr 13, 2010, 11:18 PM
Hey, guys:

Is the "accessory kit" that's coming with my new 15" (:D) just referring to the backup disks and charger? I remember that the VGA adapter used to come in that. Though I think that, like the remote, it's just going to be a CTO option.

lanlife
Apr 13, 2010, 11:20 PM
Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?:confused:

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?:confused:

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.:)

dsprimal
Apr 13, 2010, 11:21 PM
I'm now debating on going from a 2.4Ghz with 500GB @ 7200rpm + hi-res screen for a grand total including tax and 2-3day shipping of $2085.00. But then I realized to myself, if i were to save another $200 or so i could easily get the 2.66ghz with the core i7, much better CPU + gpu MB. Do you guys believe this would be a good idea? I'm only gunna game on it, i have no intentions of using any other power intensive programs.

Thanks!

oh yeah and another note...do u think these laptops will sell out anytime soon? i'm saving a little more money so i'm not BROKE at the end of the day when i buy this. So lets say, another week or 2? do u think they will still be in stock? (I've never bought from apple when they first released a product!!!)

jtrenda33
Apr 13, 2010, 11:22 PM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/jtrenda33/recommendation.jpg

i'll wait for the next update, hopefully in time for back-to-school. At least I'll get a free ipod or something.

AidenShaw
Apr 13, 2010, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
If you drop it or run over it with the car, it's nice to have that covered.

What the hell do you do with your computers? :eek:
Oh, I'm just going to put my expensive laptop in the driveway in front of my car.

Seriously, a colleague at work set his Dell (company Latitude) on the roof of the car, then went back inside for something else.

He forgot about until he braked for a turn, and the laptop slid down, across the hood, hit the pavement and slid into the curb.

He put the pieces in a grocery bag, and the next day Dell brought a replacement laptop and took the bag of pieces.

Covered.

iOzzie
Apr 13, 2010, 11:26 PM
1 Well done MacWorld Australia!!

2 Will Bootcamp drivers need to be updated for the new machines or should we be fine to run bootcamp as soon as I pickup my new MBP... Im guessing different touchpad and graphics drivers as a minimum will be needed!! Do you think they will be included on the Mac DVD in the first bunch of MBPs?

If someone could answer that 2nd point, I would appreciate it!

CrazyChester
Apr 13, 2010, 11:30 PM
Dude, what are you talking about?

This is a myth.

Actually, Blu-Ray sales are up over 65% compared to last year, and in the first two months of the year, more Blu-Rays were sold than movies downloaded all of last year. 2 months!

Has this become the new pissing war for Jobs? No two button mouse, no blu-ray!?!

Look - I am happy with that there was an update, but this is a joke of an update.

compare the new MBPs to the Dell Studio XPS, which have been out for awhile now-

we have 2 cores vs. 4 cores
we have 4MB cache vs. 6/8MB cache
we have 1066 DDR-3 vs. 1333 DDR-3
we have up to 512MB graphics vs 1GB
we have up to 1680x1050 vs full hd

they have more ports, e.g. we have sd slot vs 8 in 1
they express card, sata, etc.

they have blu-ray
and the stupid Dell still costs less!

we have a little lighter system and I assume a better battery life

but again at least we have updates...

It is not how much. It is how you use it.

Mac has always got more out of their machines using less. That's what good engineering is all about.

MorphingDragon
Apr 13, 2010, 11:31 PM
Seriously, a colleague at work set his Dell (company Latitude) on the roof of the car, then went back inside for something else.

He forgot about until he braked for a turn, and the laptop slid down, across the hood, hit the pavement and slid into the curb.

He put the pieces in a grocery bag, and the next day Dell brought a replacement laptop and took the bag of pieces.

Covered.

He conveniently left his dell on hsi roof did he? ;)

BobaFettucini
Apr 13, 2010, 11:40 PM
I noticed in the waiting thread some people were saying that the stores they went to had all but antiglare high res models, can anyone confirm that ones they have been to have the 15" i7 with GLOSSY HIGH RES?

lanlife
Apr 13, 2010, 11:41 PM
i'll wait for the next update, hopefully in time for back-to-school. At least I'll get a free ipod or something.

When is it the back-to-school promotion?? I'm not ask accurate prediction just based on from your experiences.

Mrmyeah
Apr 13, 2010, 11:42 PM
Hey everyone,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

My 2006 MacBook Pro started giving me some serious battery issues (which could be easily fixed, never had any other problems with it, just figured it was time for an upgrade) around Feb, so I've been waiting patiently since, assuming a refresh was around the corner.

The update was about what I was expecting, although the 512GB Solid State was a pleasant surprise (not that I could afford it). While I would have loved to see BluRay, I just didn't see it happening (along with most of you).

Anyway, just pulled the trigger this PM and ordered the 15" i7 with the Hi-Res glossy display...... and I'm thrilled. Can't wait to open it up.

A couple of questions though (and forgive my ignorance - I'm technically challenged) -

(i) I'll migrate all the stuff from my old machine on to the new one. Will AppleTV and Airport Extreme recognize the new machine as my old? Meaning will I have a problem with authorizations for all of the iTunes based peripherals (like iPods, ATV etc)?

(ii) anybody have an idea on how long shipping would take to Toronto? It said it would ship in 24h, just wondering about the timeframe following that until it arrives at my door.

Thanks so much for your help and while checking the site for update rumours I've learned a lot........ so thanks!

M :apple:

:apple: 2006 MacBook Pro 15"/2.16ghz/120GB - 1st Gen MacBook Air - 1st Gen iPhone - iPhone 3G - AppleTV - 2010 MacBook Pro 15"/2.66ghz i7/500GB

StuddedLeather
Apr 13, 2010, 11:50 PM
I'm now debating on going from a 2.4Ghz with 500GB @ 7200rpm + hi-res screen for a grand total including tax and 2-3day shipping of $2085.00. But then I realized to myself, if i were to save another $200 or so i could easily get the 2.66ghz with the core i7, much better CPU + gpu MB. Do you guys believe this would be a good idea? I'm only gunna game on it, i have no intentions of using any other power intensive programs.

Thanks!

oh yeah and another note...do u think these laptops will sell out anytime soon? i'm saving a little more money so i'm not BROKE at the end of the day when i buy this. So lets say, another week or 2? do u think they will still be in stock? (I've never bought from apple when they first released a product!!!)

I say go with the 2.66ghz i7 with a 128ssd. If you're in school (or get it from the online store) You save around $200 (U.S) that total would be around $2300.

This is the model I'm getting (Same configuration as above) and with my taxes and everything it comes to $2,372.39 (NYC)

Oh and bro the product was just released. . . They won't sell out. Besides you have to wait alittle longer for online configurations anyway. I hope this helped.

Great Dave
Apr 14, 2010, 12:07 AM
It is not how much. It is how you use it.

Mac has always got more out of their machines using less. That's what good engineering is all about.

Yeah, I see your sig.

But, c'mon doesn't it make you a little mad that, we get these little incremental updates, when at one time it seemed like Apple was the leader and took some chances.

It just seems like we are always behind.

knownikko
Apr 14, 2010, 12:21 AM
Thats funny too, because the entire industry, other than Apple, has moved to 16x9 over the last couple of years. Apple is the only major manufacturer not shipping 16x9 across the board for everything.

ROFL.

You think they did this because it's "better"?

It's cheaper. That's the only reason for it, period. Less pixels than a similarly-sized 16:10, and shared assembly lines with TVs. But you go right ahead and keep believing that this change was made so that your movies fit better. ;)


So obviously the ENTIRE computer industry agrees with me. While only the overly vocal insignificantly small minority agrees with you ;)


Again, you gain horizontal space with 16x9, video displays properly, and you get more space to work with. Whats the problem?
The problem is you're making up the "extra horizontal space" argument in most cases.

Photography is still 4x3. A wider display will benefit you there. Gives you more room to have your tools open around the picture.

Wanna know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? ;)

Which explains why everyone except Apple has moved to 16x9 displays as standard.

Oh and care to explain why the current iMacs are 16x9 now instead of 16x10?

See above for explanation. Cost, plain and simple. 16:9 panels are cheaper, and they're cheaper for a reason.

FX120
Apr 14, 2010, 12:31 AM
http://anodizedblue.net/images/t510.png

That's all I've got to say about this update...

janakin2k5
Apr 14, 2010, 12:57 AM
I was just complaining about my 2.4Ghz black MacBook last night and it not being able to run Aperture 3 at all. Boom, Apple releases new MacBook Pros. Kind of impulsively I ordered one!

I ordered:

15" MacBook Pro 2.66Ghz i7
500GB 7200rpm
stock 4GB of RAM
upgraded 1680x1050 antiglare screen

It could arrive by Friday!

grs
Apr 14, 2010, 01:30 AM
... A couple of questions though (and forgive my ignorance - I'm technically challenged) -

(i) I'll migrate all the stuff from my old machine on to the new one. Will AppleTV and Airport Extreme recognize the new machine as my old? Meaning will I have a problem with authorizations for all of the iTunes based peripherals (like iPods, ATV etc)?

(ii) anybody have an idea on how long shipping would take to Toronto? ...



Can't tell you about the shipping, but I can tell you that I bought my 15" i7 today and migrated all my old files and settings from a PowerBook G4 seamlessly, using FW800. My new MBP set up almost exactly like my PB. Internet (including Airport Extreme, e-mail login, etc.) worked automatically. I don't have AppleTV, though, so I can't say anything about that, but it seems like you ought to have a fairly painless migration experience.

mosx
Apr 14, 2010, 01:31 AM
ROFL.

You think they did this because it's "better"?

It's cheaper. That's the only reason for it, period. Less pixels than a similarly-sized 16:10, and shared assembly lines with TVs. But you go right ahead and keep believing that this change was made so that your movies fit better.

Yes, it is cheaper. Like I said in another thread, it's cheaper because they can finally produce standard screens. No awkwardly proportioned screens that nobody, except a very very small number of people, want.

Oh and all of those PC screens that used to be 1280x800 are now 1366x768. You gain more horizontally than you lose vertically. Those old 1440x900 screens are now 1600x900. Ones that used to be 1680x1050 are now 1920x1080. And so on and so forth.

The problem is you're making up the "extra horizontal space" argument in most cases.

Nope. 1366x768 offers more horizontal resolution than 1280x800. 1600x900 offers more horizontal resolution than 1440x900. 1920x1080 offers more horizontal resolution than 1680x1050.

Wanna know how I know you don't know what you're talking about?

Okay, so now all digital cameras suddenly take 16x10 pictures?

See above for explanation. Cost, plain and simple. 16:9 panels are cheaper, and they're cheaper for a reason.

Because everyone wants them and only a small insignificant number of Apple fans don't? ;) The industry has moved on. It's more difficult to find a 16x10 screen now outside of Apple than it is to find a reasonably priced Mac.

You sound like a child.

Go and buy the $1,000 quad core and just shut-up. There you go problem solved. If you're going to complain and beat your keyboard up, its no need to think about it. Either buy the Mac or move on.

Another person who can't stand to hear the truth.

The funny thing about my posts? All but a couple were typed on my MacBook ;)

If that's what matters to you, then fine. I think generally people use their computers for so many things... and some may not feel like staring at it for an additional 2 hours to watch a movie, which would be better enjoyed on a larger (MUCH larger) screen anyway.

::shrug::

Thats your opinion. The vast majority of college students won't have a TV. They'll be using their computer for EVERYTHING. Work and entertainment. Someone who travels a lot? I know people who travel all the time for work. They live off their laptop. Theres literally millions of people out there who will have no other choice but to watch a movie on their laptop if they want to watch a movie.

Plus my desktop display is better than most HDTVs, I sit close to it, and I have headphones that sound better than most (but not mine) home theater systems. Watching a blu-ray disc on my computer is enjoyable.

As long as we can just agree that Blu-ray's "necessity" is a matter of opinion... and not some matter of universal truth. Would having Blu-ray be nice? Yeah maybe, for additional bragging rights i suppose. Don't think i'd actually use it that much myself. [doesn't it come with a lot of DRM baggage? stuff that gets all integrated into both hardware & software? idunno, whatever... if you need it then buy a PC i guess.]

The DRM bit is nonsense made up by Apple fans who support Apple's idiotic "bag of hurt" stance.

Theres no more DRM that actually affects the end user than there is on iTunes downloads. If you want to watch a blu-ray disc on an external display then you need an HDCP certified setup, the same way you do with iTunes movies now.

Actually, Blu-Ray sales are up over 65% compared to last year, and in the first two months of the year, more Blu-Rays were sold than movies downloaded all of last year. 2 months!

With blu-ray already being adopted at twice the rate DVD was for the same time period a year ago, that means that blu-ray is outpacing DVD adoption (when compared to the same point in either products life) even faster now.

compare the new MBPs to the Dell Studio XPS, which have been out for awhile now-

we have 2 cores vs. 4 cores
we have 4MB cache vs. 6/8MB cache
we have 1066 DDR-3 vs. 1333 DDR-3
we have up to 512MB graphics vs 1GB
we have up to 1680x1050 vs full hd

Don't forget that the Dell has an RGBLED backlit display and the MBP is only edge-lit ;) HUGE difference.

Eric S.
Apr 14, 2010, 01:42 AM
Will Bootcamp drivers need to be updated for the new machines or should we be fine to run bootcamp as soon as I pickup my new MBP... Im guessing different touchpad and graphics drivers as a minimum will be needed!! Do you think they will be included on the Mac DVD in the first bunch of MBPs?

Since Boot Camp support is officially advertised, I would expect it to work right out of the box. Windows drivers for the new HW should have been written and tested as part of the development process.

That doesn't mean it will be bug free. Obviously Apple is more concerned with OS X performance than Windows. It took ages to get acceptable performance with the glass trackpad on the unibodies, and it still doesn't compare to OS X.

Repo
Apr 14, 2010, 01:45 AM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/jtrenda33/recommendation.jpg

I LOL'd... and then checked the Buyer's Guide...

RyoohkiCuttie
Apr 14, 2010, 01:51 AM
I waited up to go to an apple store at 10am...they didnt have them in...checked at noon and they did! I got the 15" i5 2.53mhz...Mobile Me, iWorkds, AppleCare and a Printer!!! I've basically been up since 6pm monday night and spent the whole day playing and moving things over from my PC! The old laptop goes to my brother when I'm done! ::cool::D:rolleyes::o:):apple:

ghostsp23
Apr 14, 2010, 01:59 AM
Oh no they had an update and i dont like it.MBP 13" got hardly nothing the others are too expensive boo hoo. Simple if it does not suite your needs dont buy!If it does and you want/can afford it then buy it. I got a 09 MBP 13" 2.26Ghz 4GbDDR3 400Gb HDD. (RAM/HDD I did myself) i dont play games on it. if i wanna play games/watch blu ray ill use the PS3 (but it would be nice to have bluray to back up/burn on, before you jump down my neck).and it does what i need. Honestly i would have liked to see some iX's as a option on the 13" but it didnt happen oh well. buy the time my MBP starts to show its age im sure there will be something better. just remember that there will be another update and another and so on.we all know they come around so save some $$$$

jtrenda33
Apr 14, 2010, 02:02 AM
When is it the back-to-school promotion?? I'm not ask accurate prediction just based on from your experiences.

don't have experience. you'll have to ask one of the regulars, but i would hope that they won't wait as long as last time, and I would hope they would at least increase the capacity of the serial hard drives, and i'm still holding out for blu-ray, and HDMI. maybe if apple uses sony's sensor in the iphone like macrumors noted, it will open the door up for future collaborations like blu-ray. but either way, i'll probably get one the next time.

Hey everyone,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

lol.

I LOL'd... and then checked the Buyer's Guide...

a thank you.

iOzzie
Apr 14, 2010, 02:03 AM
Since Boot Camp support is officially advertised, I would expect it to work right out of the box. Windows drivers for the new HW should have been written and tested as part of the development process.

That doesn't mean it will be bug free. Obviously Apple is more concerned with OS X performance than Windows. It took ages to get acceptable performance with the glass trackpad on the unibodies, and it still doesn't compare to OS X.

Thanks for your reply! When someone eventually tests this on a 13' MBP could they please let me know the results for WIN7 64 bit... :) :cool:

jtrenda33
Apr 14, 2010, 02:05 AM
I waited up to go to an apple store at 10am...they didnt have them in...checked at noon and they did! I got the 15" i5 2.53mhz...Mobile Me, iWorkds, AppleCare and a Printer!!! I've basically been up since 6pm monday night and spent the whole day playing and moving things over from my PC! The old laptop goes to my brother when I'm done! ::cool::D:rolleyes::o:):apple:

oh, so i guess that dude i saw at best buy today when i was checking out the ipad for the first time actually did get one of the new ones. well, that's nice...cuz in my head i was like, "dude."

jtrenda33
Apr 14, 2010, 02:06 AM
I'm now debating on going from a 2.4Ghz with 500GB @ 7200rpm + hi-res screen for a grand total including tax and 2-3day shipping of $2085.00. But then I realized to myself, if i were to save another $200 or so i could easily get the 2.66ghz with the core i7, much better CPU + gpu MB. Do you guys believe this would be a good idea? I'm only gunna game on it, i have no intentions of using any other power intensive programs.

Thanks!

oh yeah and another note...do u think these laptops will sell out anytime soon? i'm saving a little more money so i'm not BROKE at the end of the day when i buy this. So lets say, another week or 2? do u think they will still be in stock? (I've never bought from apple when they first released a product!!!)

i think you're safe lol.

Terminal.app
Apr 14, 2010, 02:09 AM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 512MB

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nh24qw.jpg

Seriously Apple? It had to be a gimpy NVIDIA chip when ATI currently has the upper hand on modern GPUs. Where's the Mobility Radeon 5850? If the 330M had at least been the 1GB version...but 512 MB is so 2007. Seriously.

cult hero
Apr 14, 2010, 02:18 AM
Yeah i agree 100%, . I'll take 16:10 screen anyday for laptops. So glad they did not reduce it to 16:9. 16:10 is much easier for doing work. Watching movies on laptops is secondary for me. You have your big screen tv for movies so i dont know why these ppl are complaining..

While I'm avoiding most of this discussion like the plague, I MUCH prefer 16:10 to 16:9. I use my laptop for work, not as a mobile DVD player.

beginnersview
Apr 14, 2010, 02:18 AM
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.
...

On the one hand I am glad that Apple still provides a real anti-glare anti-reflective screen option.
On the other hand, I am saddened that it only comes with the higher priced, higher pixel resolution 1680 screen.

Great for movies and picture details, horrible for basic old-fashioned words and text display.

I agree that 1680 pixels on a 15.4" screen means that all the names and text are going to be pretty dam small for me to read.
Yes, once you are in an app you can usually tell it to display text larger. But depending on the app, that doesn't always work uniformly or naturally. And the Finder (files, folders names and lists), and text based apps are still going to be pretty hard for me to read.
Sigh.

Currently I am using a 22" 1680x1050 monitor with my Mac Mini. I can only imagine the magnifying glass I'm going to need to read when they've crammed the same number of pixels into a 33% smaller physical space. :eek: Double sigh.

Terminal.app
Apr 14, 2010, 02:21 AM
ITT: People who, for some bizarre reason, secretly long for the days of 1024x768 CRT screens.

Why on earth are you complaining about a higher-res screen? I would kill for a 1920x1200 option on the 15" like some of the Thinkpads have. Pixel density is fantastic.

o9p0
Apr 14, 2010, 02:22 AM
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.

If you're into content creation and rich media consumption, this doesn't make sense. At the 2 year mark, the demands of new media and bloating software tools (here's looking at you Adobe) are such that new hardware is needed to compensate for more complext processing tasks. At the 3 year mark, the productivity factor / CPU time will begin to be an issue: minutes add up to lost productivity.

If all you're doing is web surfing, office *****, and email. Then you've been alright with Windows XP or pre-mac Panther on 2002 hardware (if you run two programs at a time and have maxed your system ram).

Repo
Apr 14, 2010, 02:24 AM
Pixel density is fantastic.

Granted code writers understand they need to scale things up.

pastparticiple
Apr 14, 2010, 02:36 AM
Why on earth are you complaining about a higher-res screen? I would kill for a 1920x1200 option on the 15" like some of the Thinkpads have. Pixel density is fantastic.

Because the higher the resolution the tinier many things get. There is not any sort of universal scaling available. I had to turn the resolution down 2 notches on my last gen MBP so I could read it comfortably.

Even the third party apps that supposedly address font size etc don't work reliably.

My biggest beef is that to get anti glare I have to pay $150 more and take the high res with it. I don't need or want high res and I think it is a ****ty thing of Apple to force you to buy the "package".

since they dropped matte as a standard option many people have been complaining about it and it's lack of even a paid possibility on the 13". So what does Apple do? They make it cost even MORE and still don't make it available on the 13". Personally this single thing thing has made me go back to Windows. Not because I like the OS but because I am not willing to be nickle and dimed for a feature I need for comfort. The premium has exceeded the worth in my eyes and lots of other people's apparently.

cult hero
Apr 14, 2010, 02:54 AM
7) 10.6 has been rock solid since 10.6.2 for me, and most people.

I just want to add, as a day 1 10.6 installer, that it's been rock solid on all the machines I installed it on since.

camoas
Apr 14, 2010, 02:59 AM
Core i7 2.66GHz vs. Core2Duo 3.06 GHz

Which one wins the CPU benchmark test?

I am wondering about the CPU power of the old model (Core2Duo 3.06 GHz) in comparison to the Core i7 2.66GHz.

DontMacTheGyver
Apr 14, 2010, 03:23 AM
I'm not really happy with the 13" update... I think my expectations were just too high.

My late 2008 white MB/2.4C2D/4GBRAM (except for that crappy Intel graphic chip) still meets my needs an therefore I'll wait for the next REAL MBP update, hopefully with higher resolution screen. If not, I have to go for the 15" then, but so or so, it will be the new generation!

Regards from Istanbul
MacGyver

MCPeck
Apr 14, 2010, 03:42 AM
finally!! ...ordered...

a sweet replacement for my pb g4 1.5, aaahhhhh

edit~ i got the stock 2.4 15" but with the HD screen. hd & ram can be upgraded later... still, $2k out the door

Cecco
Apr 14, 2010, 03:43 AM
The iMac is a desktop, and the MBP is a notebook, you can't expect the same technology in different machines. The dual-core i5/i7 are MOBILE variants of the processor... this has been known all along and is not a gimack madeup by Apple. Seriously, you had months to read up on this stuff (don't act like you didn't care, you're posting at 6 in the morning PCT). The mobile variants are still much faster than previous C2D chips because of Hyper Threading. This update isn't what it was rumored to be, but it never is... We got concrete upgrades that were expectable and at least bring the MBP closer to being up to date (though I really believed blu-ray would be included judging by some of the rumors).

The fact, that several people asked, whether these i5/i7 MBPs are quad-core shows, that there is some confusion already.

Remember: In all Intel iMacs and MacMinis, Apple used mobile processors so far. Only the MacPros had dedicated desktop processors (XEON).

The i5/i7 quad-core cpus in the iMacs are mobile processors as well.

I never said, the dual-core i5/i7 are no improvement over the C2D, but anybody, who thinks the new i7 MBP with a 7200 rpm hard drive is just as fast as the iMac i7, is totally wrong.

Concerning 6 in the morning: FYI, we don't use PCT in Europe. ;-)

Cecco

MCPeck
Apr 14, 2010, 03:54 AM
The fact, that several people asked, whether these i5/i7 MBPs are quad-core shows, that there is some confusion already.

Remember: In all Intel iMacs and MacMinis, Apple used mobile processors so far. Only the MacPros had dedicated desktop processors (XEON).

The i5/i7 quad-core cpus in the iMacs are mobile processors as well.

I never said, the dual-core i5/i7 are no improvement over the C2D, but anybody, who thinks the new i7 MBP with a 7200 rpm hard drive is just as fast as the iMac i7, is totally wrong.

Concerning 6 in the morning: FYI, we don't use PCT in Europe. ;-)

Cecco

Firstly, Xeon procs are SERVER procs, not desktop. Core i3/5/7 are (iMac) desktop procs that also happen to have mobile variants. The procs spec'd and rumored for the MBP update were always the mobile variety.

I'm quite sure that the desktop Core i3/5/7 versions will be in the upcoming iMac/Mini's soon enough.

Mafuzzer
Apr 14, 2010, 03:55 AM
Right, lets start of with the positives of what Apple has done:
+ The 15" and 17" MacBook Pro's have i5's and i7's,
+ All the laptops have major graphic upgrades, from the 9400M + 9600M to Intel HD Graphics + 3XXM Series,
+ The battery life has been increased to 8 hours at least,
+ Better displays are available (from 1440x900 to 1680x1050)

But what we disagree with is:
- 13" still has a Core 2 Duo processor,
- The 15" and 17" CPU's are only dual core with Hyper Threading,
- No USB/Blu-ray (apparently, this is big)
- 5400RPM HDD's, costs about £120 to upgrade to the 7200RPM HDD (something I noticed, personally thought it should be included)

My personal opinions:
~The 13 MacBook Pro - Substantial battery life, better graphic card, but needs a better CPU
~The i series processors have been added, but there isn't 4 physical cores. Really? It's still an i5/i7. The fact that you would put them in the laptops would probably cause an increase in overall heat, making your laps burn. They did what we asked - put an i series inside the mac. I think we should be glad they put i5's/i7's in there.
~The USB and Blu-ray are not really needed as they are not mainstream. Also, if you do wait for them, you'll probably end up playing the waiting game as by the time they are mainstream, there will be something new that you would want in a Mac.
~5400RPM HDD's - this should have been 7200RPM standard.

Leo72
Apr 14, 2010, 04:28 AM
New models have subwoofers. My wish came true :D

cool11
Apr 14, 2010, 04:47 AM
How much faster is s i5 vs a c2d cpu?

Baadshah
Apr 14, 2010, 04:56 AM
Do you guys know if next update would be a new generation of MBP?, as the aluminum macbooks are soon over 2 years old.

ToM7
Apr 14, 2010, 05:08 AM
upgrade my macbook or not still wait to the next update?
some advices will help me thanks :)

apolloa
Apr 14, 2010, 05:24 AM
If you want to know how much faster the i7 is, why don't you read the story on the front page of this website?

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/13/early-benchmarks-show-significant-performance-gains-for-core-i7-macbook-pro/

It also shows why all the stupid idiots claiming this isn't much of an upgrade have no clue what they are talking about and should shut up really. Unless you personally think a 50% gain in performance isn't a big upgrade? Dynamic CPU and graphics control to prolong battery life on a computer laptop isn't an important and big upgrade?

And as for ATI, well more fool you for thinking they would have it, I did to begin with until I read about Optimus then knew Apple would use Nvidia again. It makes far more sense for them to do that.

DontMacTheGyver
Apr 14, 2010, 05:34 AM
upgrade my macbook or not still wait to the next update?
some advices will help me thanks :)

Depends on your needs.
If you are really a pro user and need the i5/i7 power for your work - get one.
If you are a normal/medium user, and it looks like that, wait for the next generation. Then you can get 13" MBP with new processor and most probably some nice quad core 15/17"...
Your MacBook is not too bad, I think it will make it another year :)

Regards from Istanbul
MacGyver

bruno7
Apr 14, 2010, 05:39 AM
What a joke...
For what you get for the money you spend on these new updates is preposterous.. aside from the increased battery life, there really is nothing to rave about...

I just bought a Asus G73JH-A2 w/ Core i7-720QM, 8GB, 1TB 7200 RPM drive, DVD+/-RW, 17.3in Full HD, Radeon HD 5870, Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit for just under $1700 Canadian which included a back pack and gaming mouse ... I sold my October 09 Macbook, sick of the slower than windows 7 OS and the heat too ...

My ASUS has a better graphics chip, does not heat up like the Macbook ( I swear I had a waffle iron sitting on my lap at times), it has the heating vents out of the back and Windows 7 does not have the habit of OS X which has the spinning beach ball occur more every-time a new Snow Leopard update comes out.. and the new stealth look of Asus looks great and is a durable rubberized finish...

My point is that Macbook Pros are way over priced and they need to change their ways as in offer more for the money people are spending if they want to truly got a larger market share for their laptops...

OK, so you've got your Asus (which to me BTW is one of the ugliest laptops ever... never mind), now why exactly are you complaining about this update?

You're in the Windows world now! I can only say - enjoy it! I will gladly and happily stay in the world of Mac OS and the beautiful design that surrounds it!

Hog
Apr 14, 2010, 05:42 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.

Uh... Where do you see an i5 in the 13''....

DontMacTheGyver
Apr 14, 2010, 05:53 AM
OK, so you've got your Asus (which to me BTW is one of the ugliest laptops ever... never mind), now why exactly are you complaining about this update?

You're in the Windows world now! I can only say - enjoy it! I will gladly and happily stay in the world of Mac OS and the beautiful design that surrounds it!

Ugliest laptop ever? I didn't even identify it as an laptop... thought it was kind of...space ship :)

lanlife
Apr 14, 2010, 05:54 AM
Uh... Where do you see an i5 in the 13''....

Maybe he was too excited but personally, I wish that guy is correct.:rolleyes:

Hog
Apr 14, 2010, 05:56 AM
Lets be honest, most people buying the 13" MBP aren't going to use the power anyway. I'm not saying you won't but a lot would never. It's mostly highschool kids and college students using them for web browsing and word processing.

True, but for someone like me in school for animation, rendering out animation scenes in Maya, this update is horrible news. (looking at the 13'')

xbjllb
Apr 14, 2010, 06:04 AM
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:

Are you dumber than Steve Jobs or just pretending? Do you have any idea how much marketing Apple has been doing from day one to video and audio for video content creators and providers? Do you have any idea how much of an investment those content creators and providers have invested in Apple over the years and are now going elsewhere by the hundreds of thousands, WITH their hundreds of thousands? I have a $15,000/YEAR computer budget that has sat for three years while Jobs does his Willie Wonka trip with iCrap I don't need, don't want, and will never ever buy.

Major motion pictures and a lot of TV HAD been edited on Mac Pros in the past, on some iMacs, and on Macbook Pros, but no longer. Those people needed Blu-ray delivery three years ago, and an OS that could handle it and REALLY be cutting edge. Not just fake it.

Try thinking outside of your uncreative little box. And get up off your knees, the Jobs shrine thing is getting old.

:apple:

bobthedino
Apr 14, 2010, 06:09 AM
Anyone got any idea as to whether QuickTime X and OpenCL are supported by the new NVIDIA chips? The Snow Leopard page still says that QuickTime X H.264 acceleration requires a 9400M, for example.

GSinnott
Apr 14, 2010, 06:09 AM
UK student discount 3-year AppleCare price is up from the £40 mark to around £200. Any word on this?

bjsbuds
Apr 14, 2010, 06:15 AM
My company is getting ready to purchase laptops for employees. We have been told we can select whichever brand we want up at a cost up to $2,000. I have been waiting for the new MBP since Jan in hopes that they would match up more closely with Dell & Lenovo laptops in terms of features & price.

We will be operating in an Windows environment at work, but I was hoping to use OS at home. But, once I put this comparison together (see attached PDF), I do not know how in good conscious I can say I want a MBP.

Also, the MBP would have to be able to connect to two Dell 24" monitors and work. Am I missing something?

Hog
Apr 14, 2010, 06:17 AM
Dude, what are you talking about?

This is a myth.

Actually, Blu-Ray sales are up over 65% compared to last year, and in the first two months of the year, more Blu-Rays were sold than movies downloaded all of last year. 2 months!

Has this become the new pissing war for Jobs? No two button mouse, no blu-ray!?!

Look - I am happy with that there was an update, but this is a joke of an update.

compare the new MBPs to the Dell Studio XPS, which have been out for awhile now-

we have 2 cores vs. 4 cores
we have 4MB cache vs. 6/8MB cache
we have 1066 DDR-3 vs. 1333 DDR-3
we have up to 512MB graphics vs 1GB
we have up to 1680x1050 vs full hd

they have more ports, e.g. we have sd slot vs 8 in 1
they express card, sata, etc.

they have blu-ray
and the stupid Dell still costs less!

we have a little lighter system and I assume a better battery life

but again at least we have updates...

Yeah really.... Common now apple!

camoas
Apr 14, 2010, 06:21 AM
If you want to know how much faster the i7 is, why don't you read the story on the front page of this website?

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/13/early-benchmarks-show-significant-performance-gains-for-core-i7-macbook-pro/
[...]

because they missed one important test:
Core i7 2.66GHz vs. Core2Duo 3.06 GHz

they only tested Core i7 2.66GHz vs. Core2Duo 2.8 GHz

bobbytomorow
Apr 14, 2010, 06:21 AM
Are you dumber than Steve Jobs or just pretending? Do you have any idea how much marketing Apple has been doing from day one to video and audio for video content creators and providers? Do you have any idea how much of an investment those content creators and providers have invested in Apple over the years and are now going elsewhere by the hundreds of thousands, WITH their hundreds of thousands? I have a $15,000/YEAR computer budget that has sat for three years while Jobs does his Willie Wonka trip with iCrap I don't need, don't want, and will never ever buy.

Major motion pictures and a lot of TV HAD been edited on Mac Pros in the past, on some iMacs, and on Macbook Pros, but no longer. Those people needed Blu-ray delivery three years ago, and an OS that could handle it and REALLY be cutting edge. Not just fake it.

Try thinking outside of your uncreative little box. And get up off your knees, the Jobs shrine thing is getting old.

:apple:

From someone who works at Black Box studios, you do realise that blu-ray is just a form of content delivery right? If you have terabytes of content are you really going to sit there and wait until it all gets written to a blu-ray? That would take a week, stop fooling yourself and be honest with people here. We use external SSD's, and thats it. Optical=dead

racer1441
Apr 14, 2010, 06:45 AM
Watch a BluRay on a hi-def TV and you'll notice the difference.

I have. All looks the same.

Fisketryne
Apr 14, 2010, 06:50 AM
Just ordered the cheapest 15' mac. For those in Canada and elswhere bitchin about price, I paid 14,990 norwegian crowns for the vanilla edition. That is 2,549.62 dollars. Now be happy.

BTW: More people have pressed the "negative" button on the news item. WTF?

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 06:57 AM
True, but for someone like me in school for animation, rendering out animation scenes in Maya, this update is horrible news. (looking at the 13'')

To be brutally honest, running Maya with Mac OSX or on a 13" MacBook Pro is just stupid. The only good quality 3D "Pro Level" animation program on Mac OSX is Cinema 4D. Autodesk seem to be too busy complaining about OpenGL than actually coding Maya. Their excuses are pathetic as Apple's implementation of OpenGL is consistent.

mschipperheyn
Apr 14, 2010, 07:04 AM
For all those disagreeing with Steve. Let's face it: pretty much all of us.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114132048604514

Cheers,

Marc

Digital Skunk
Apr 14, 2010, 07:06 AM
True, but for someone like me in school for animation, rendering out animation scenes in Maya, this update is horrible news. (looking at the 13'')

Going to school for animation?

15" Hi Def, or 17" and nothing else.

The 13" may pack the power, but that screen real estate is going to kill you after some time.

drlunanerd
Apr 14, 2010, 07:12 AM
UK student discount 3-year AppleCare price is up from the £40 mark to around £200. Any word on this?

Still £58.75 on the UK Higher Edu store.
You don't need it anyway as 3 year basic AppleCare is included free.

Sequin
Apr 14, 2010, 07:20 AM
Question! Anyone can get to the Developer Connection page where there are much better discounts. However, even after logging in and not being a member it still lets me go to check out and enter all of my information. If I placed an order through that without being a member do you think they'd end up charging me more or would they even notice?

torbjoern
Apr 14, 2010, 07:23 AM
Just ordered the cheapest 15' mac. For those in Canada and elswhere bitchin about price, I paid 14,990 norwegian crowns for the vanilla edition. That is 2,549.62 dollars. Now be happy.

BTW: More people have pressed the "negative" button on the news item. WTF?

I like that conclusion of yours, "fish face"! :p

The reason why more people have rated this article "negative" can be read throughout the thread:
- MBP 13" comes with C2D processor (still!) as opposed to 15" and 17", and matte screen is still not available for the 13".
- MBP 15" comes with glossy screen as default, but in order to go with a matte (425 kr extra) one first has to upgrade to high-resolution (850 kr extra!).

If I were to buy a MBP in near future, I would certainly be disappointed in this so-called "update".

Digital Skunk
Apr 14, 2010, 07:28 AM
Question! Anyone can get to the Developer Connection page where there are much better discounts. However, even after logging in and not being a member it still lets me go to check out and enter all of my information. If I placed an order through that without being a member do you think they'd end up charging me more or would they even notice?

I don't know about the ADC pages and discounts, but every other discount Apple has isn't tracked, or isn't a big deal to them. They don't check if you order from the EDU store, nor do they enforce the 1 CPU 1 Laptop agreement.

I say order away!

alent1234
Apr 14, 2010, 07:38 AM
anyone check the pricing on the HP Envy lately? except for the graphics card, the new MBP beats the Envy on price when you add all the upgrades like optical drive, battery, etc.

and with HP's award winning support, who would you feel safer giving $2000 to?

Sequin
Apr 14, 2010, 07:43 AM
I don't know about the ADC pages and discounts, but every other discount Apple has isn't tracked, or isn't a big deal to them. They don't check if you order from the EDU store, nor do they enforce the 1 CPU 1 Laptop agreement.

I say order away!
I think I'll try it when I do order! It's a couple hundred dollars off. Totally worth it if they don't even notice that I'm not a member of that thing!

arnoz
Apr 14, 2010, 07:47 AM
So I read the first 30 pages but don't have time for the others, sorry if it has already been answered.

What about switch of graphic cards in Windows using Parallels? I installed XP just for games, will it always use the nVidia, the Intel, switch between both?
Any idea?

Fisketryne
Apr 14, 2010, 07:53 AM
I like that conclusion of yours, "fish face"! :p

The reason why more people have rated this article "negative" can be read throughout the thread:
- MBP 13" comes with C2D processor (still!) as opposed to 15" and 17", and matte screen is still not available for the 13".
- MBP 15" comes with glossy screen as default, but in order to go with a matte (425 kr extra) one first has to upgrade to high-resolution (850 kr extra!).

If I were to buy a MBP in near future, I would certainly be disappointed in this so-called "update".

Haha. A fellow norwegian. Hei dude :)

I guess having followed macrumors for a few months, waiting for the new models, I thought people would be a bit more excited ;)

Anyways. Look at the battery time! It's ridiculus, and will be a major upgrade for me. But maybe not for everyone..

Anyways. I went for glare (which I guess is what my old macbook has) because it doesn't bother me and to keep cost down. Really don't want more resolution anyway. Bring on the glare!

AidenShaw
Apr 14, 2010, 08:45 AM
He conveniently left his dell on hsi roof did he? ;)

It wasn't "convenient". He got a refurb of the same model, and the disk didn't survive so he had to rebuild his environment.

UltraLobster
Apr 14, 2010, 08:53 AM
Hey guys, made a new account here to post my options. I can't decide on which one to choose.

I'd be a new mac user. But like lots of others, I've been waiting for the new Core i# 13" MBP. Since it's not here my options are limited and I'm unsure which one to do.

Prices are CAD after edu discount. I'm not sure if it add's 13% tax after checkout. Can any other Canadian's who bought online wanna fill me in if it does?

1) Buy the low end 13" MBP for $1150 and just be happy with it. Keep it for a few years. Assuming it would lose lots of value if a core i# 13" MBP hits soon + I'd be sad. If no core 13" hits I'd be perfectly happy.

2) Buy the low end 15" MBP and pay for the extra resolution and anti-gloss $1850. Keep it for a few years. It would be more powerful than my desktop but ultimately cost $$$.

3) Buy option 2) and once the 13" core i# comes out compare if it's worth it to sell 15" at a bit of a loss and pick up the 13". (To make it worth the $ loss, the 13" would need the new processor and higher resolution. Anti-gloss wouldn't hurt either.)

4) Keep waiting like I am now for the eventual 13" with core i# processor (bound to come sooner or later). If it does arrive and doesn't live up to expections of 3), or if it took another year to arrive, I'd be mad. However if it comes by Sept, or end of year, this would be the best choice.

I went to the apple store last night to see how different physically the 13" is compared to the 15" and I really love the size of the 13". The 15" just seemed to big. But for the extra $700 it costs for the 15", I find worth the money for the 75% extra resolution, anti-gloss and core i5 compared to c2d.

I don't really need the extra power of the core i5 but when seeing the resolution difference it's almost a deal breaker to buy the 13". I wouldn't mind waiting it out more but if the next iteration of the 13". But if it is equally as disappointing I don't know what I'd do.

Then the notion of spending around $2000 on a notebook comes into my mind. I can easily afford both machines but I've always spent around $1000 on window's laptops and I really wanted to get in on using a Mac. I'm working now but will be going back to finish my last year of university this September so I will be needing a laptop by then. I have a Q6600 quad core desktop which is why the extra power in the laptop isn't really needed. And even though I could afford the extra $700 I'd like to save the money if I don't have to spend it.

If I wait it out and no other updates come along I'd have to bite the bullet and buy something come Sept anyways. If no updates come by then I'd be pissed I didn't buy the MBP at the beginning of the summer, so I can learn how to use it and enjoy it for fun things while not in school.

So I'm torn because I can't weight the +/-'s of each model:

13" is perfect size, but older CPU and low resolution/no anti-gloss
15" is peftect but except for the size.

If I could get the guts of that 15" in the 13" physical size I would have gladly forked over $2000 for one yesterday.

:( Any tips?

Heilage
Apr 14, 2010, 08:54 AM
Haha. A fellow norwegian. Hei dude :)

I guess having followed macrumors for a few months, waiting for the new models, I thought people would be a bit more excited ;)

Anyways. Look at the battery time! It's ridiculus, and will be a major upgrade for me. But maybe not for everyone..

Anyways. I went for glare (which I guess is what my old macbook has) because it doesn't bother me and to keep cost down. Really don't want more resolution anyway. Bring on the glare!

Alltid fint å se nordmenn her.

However, I can understand that a lot of people are somewhat disappointed, even though I am not. Quad Core was to be expected, and I know can be a deal-breaker for a lot of people, a friend of mine included who is working with video rendering. He has decided that a new MBP 17 is not worth the money for that speed bump, considering he now has a 17" Mid 2009. So it kind of makes sense. I did some looking around at other computers, and it seems that you actually have to pay a lot of money for a notebook with i5 CPU, a decent amount of RAM, sturdy build quality and a LED-display (which is important to me). I can't really get a better deal than a MacBook Pro for my needs, but since we are all different, we all want and need different things from our computers.

Such is life.

Digital Skunk
Apr 14, 2010, 09:19 AM
He has decided that a new MBP 17 is not worth the money for that speed bump, considering he now has a 17" Mid 2009.

People that look for an upgrade after a few months need to get a life. A mid 2009 machine doesn't need to be replaced by a mid 2010 model. There obviously won't be much of a speed increase.

jahman
Apr 14, 2010, 09:26 AM
Are you dumber than Steve Jobs or just pretending? Do you have any idea how much marketing Apple has been doing from day one to video and audio for video content creators and providers? Do you have any idea how much of an investment those content creators and providers have invested in Apple over the years and are now going elsewhere by the hundreds of thousands, WITH their hundreds of thousands? I have a $15,000/YEAR computer budget that has sat for three years while Jobs does his Willie Wonka trip with iCrap I don't need, don't want, and will never ever buy.

Major motion pictures and a lot of TV HAD been edited on Mac Pros in the past, on some iMacs, and on Macbook Pros, but no longer. Those people needed Blu-ray delivery three years ago, and an OS that could handle it and REALLY be cutting edge. Not just fake it.

Try thinking outside of your uncreative little box. And get up off your knees, the Jobs shrine thing is getting old.

:apple:

I think you're spot on;). Failure to support blu-ray is a major mistake by Jobs and he knows it. Macbooks Pros are simply not competitive without it. I will probably get one for some development work but I wouldn't bother if it weren't for the iPhone/iPod/iPad.

Cheers,

jahman

Heilage
Apr 14, 2010, 09:35 AM
People that look for an upgrade after a few months need to get a life. A mid 2009 machine doesn't need to be replaced by a mid 2010 model. There obviously won't be much of a speed increase.

It would have been worth it for him if the i7 had been a quad, since that gives him nice speed boost in his type of work.

iMacmatician
Apr 14, 2010, 09:43 AM
Oh and all of those PC screens that used to be 1280x800 are now 1366x768. You gain more horizontally than you lose vertically. Those old 1440x900 screens are now 1600x900. Ones that used to be 1680x1050 are now 1920x1080. And so on and so forth.



Nope. 1366x768 offers more horizontal resolution than 1280x800. 1600x900 offers more horizontal resolution than 1440x900. 1920x1080 offers more horizontal resolution than 1680x1050. 2048x1152 offers more horizontal resolution than 1920x1200.

The i5/i7 quad-core cpus in the iMacs are mobile processors as well.They are desktop CPUs.

cool11
Apr 14, 2010, 10:12 AM
How can I find the model numbers of the new mbp?

Maserati7200
Apr 14, 2010, 10:16 AM
Oh and all of those PC screens that used to be 1280x800 are now 1366x768. You gain more horizontally than you lose vertically. Those old 1440x900 screens are now 1600x900. Ones that used to be 1680x1050 are now 1920x1080. And so on and so forth.
Sure you gain horizontal space, but you lose vertical space except for 1600x900 from 1400x900. And listen, a lot of people do real work on their computers that requires hight. I have a 13" MBP, with a hight of 800 pixels. That's barely enough, I wish I had a 15" screen. Reducing that to 768 would not be a good thing, let me assure you. Does it really matter if you see black bars on the top and bottom when watching movies? Because most people use their computers for things more useful than watching movies. And besides, a lot of movies have an ever wider ratio. Even with 16x9 you'll see black bars.
Look at the iMacs. The 24" iMac had a 1920x1200 resolution, now the 21.5 has a 1920x1080 resolution. You just lost pixels. The 27" iMac has a 2560x1440 resolution, and the 30" Cinema display has a 2560x1600 display. That's not an improvement, that's worse. I'm not one of those people blindingly supporting what Apple does. I hate that the new iMacs are 16x9, and hope that their notebooks don't go that route. And on the iMac it's not even so bad because it already has a high resolution. But notebooks have lower resolutions, I don't want to lose vertical space for horizontal space, even if it does give you more pixels in some case. And I'm sure most people who actually work on their computers instead of d**cking around agree with me.

Hal Itosis
Apr 14, 2010, 10:23 AM
The DRM bit is nonsense made up by Apple fans who support Apple's idiotic "bag of hurt" stance.

Oh, you mean like Bill Gates?

Gates: Blu-ray DRM is 'Anti-Consumer' (http://www.betanews.com/article/Gates-Bluray-DRM-is-AntiConsumer/1129572265) As part of a speaking tour at universities across the United States, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates sat down with Princeton's newspaper (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2005/10/14/13474/) to discuss the road ahead. When asked why Microsoft chose to support HD DVD over Sony's Blu-ray format, Gates replied that Blu-ray's copyright protection scheme is "anti-consumer."

"The inconvenience is that the [movie] studios got too much protection at the expense consumers and it won't work well on PCs," Gates said. "It's not the physical format that we have the issue with, it's that the protection scheme on Blu-ray is very anti-consumer." Gates also questioned how much next-gen DVD formats will even matter, saying content will soon be streamed directly or stored on a hard disk.


Or... Welcome to Windows 7 Forums: "The HDCP system is easy to understand and it is annoying." . . . <<snip>> . . . the player, and every other device in the signal transmission train (videocard, monitor, etc) must be HDCP compliant (http://www.sevenforums.com/music-pictures-video/61955-understanding-hdcp-blu-ray-copy-protection-its-h.html)."



Hmm, this doesn't seem to be from Apple fans either: What you need to know about HDCP, Blu-Ray, and your Computer (http://bigpcgeek.com/blog/2008/02/28/what-you-need-to-know-about-hdcp-blu-ray-and-your-computer/)

--

Frankly, a little less troll-speak and a little more candor would be helpful here.

oris
Apr 14, 2010, 10:27 AM
These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

jragosta
Apr 14, 2010, 10:31 AM
I think you're spot on;). Failure to support blu-ray is a major mistake by Jobs and he knows it. Macbooks Pros are simply not competitive without it.

In your opinion.

Now, please give us some reason to believe that your opinion is more valid than Jobs' opinion of what the market wants - backed up by Apple's market research teams.

True, but for someone like me in school for animation, rendering out animation scenes in Maya, this update is horrible news. (looking at the 13'')

You probably want a 15" for that kind of work, anyway.

But I'm having a hard time understanding why it's such horrible news. The new 13" has a faster CPU, MUCH faster graphics, significantly longer battery life, bigger hard disk, better memory system, and other minor advancements over the old system - for the same price. What do you want?

My company is getting ready to purchase laptops for employees. We have been told we can select whichever brand we want up at a cost up to $2,000. I have been waiting for the new MBP since Jan in hopes that they would match up more closely with Dell & Lenovo laptops in terms of features & price.

We will be operating in an Windows environment at work, but I was hoping to use OS at home. But, once I put this comparison together (see attached PDF), I do not know how in good conscious I can say I want a MBP.

Also, the MBP would have to be able to connect to two Dell 24" monitors and work. Am I missing something?

Yes. Look at the reported reliability and customer satisfaction scores in virtually every survey done over the past decade. Apple is vastly superior in those regards.

Also, be very careful about looking at specs on screens. While some of the others have higher resolution screens, almost every review of MacBook Pro systems raves about how great the screens are compared to the competition. Since you'll spend a lot of time looking at the screen, that is arguably one of the most important factors.

Hey guys, made a new account here to post my options. I can't decide on which one to choose.

I'd be a new mac user. But like lots of others, I've been waiting for the new Core i# 13" MBP. Since it's not here my options are limited and I'm unsure which one to do.

I would suggest that you stop looking at specs and focus on which computer will do the job for you. Saying that you refuse to even consider the 13" because it doesn't have an i3 is like saying you refuse to consider a Ferrari because it doesn't have 20" tires.

If it were me, the larger and higher resolution of the 15" would push me there, but you may be comfortable with a 13" screen. Spend some time at the Apple store trying them both out.

Core i7 2.66GHz vs. Core2Duo 3.06 GHz

Which one wins the CPU benchmark test?

See the MacRumors front page for a story. It compares the i7 to the 2.8 GHz Core2Duo, but it's fairly easy to see how much the 3.06 GHz beats the 2.8.

Overall, the i7 beats the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo by around 40-50%. The 3.06 is about 5% faster than the 2.8, so you're still looking at something like 35-40% faster.

I'm not really happy with the 13" update... I think my expectations were just too high.

Yes, they were. Bigger hard drive, faster processor, more battery life, much faster GPU than the previous version all at the same price. Did you expect it to make breakfast for you, too?

The fact, that several people asked, whether these i5/i7 MBPs are quad-core shows, that there is some confusion already.

Remember: In all Intel iMacs and MacMinis, Apple used mobile processors so far.

Please stop contributing to the confusion. The iMac uses desktop i7 processors. Intel does not make a mobile i7 at the 2.8 GHz of the iMac quad.

jragosta
Apr 14, 2010, 10:34 AM
These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

Why in the world would you expect Apple to make a premium, lightweight 15" computer with the highest quality screen and other internals on the planet for the same price as some generic, heavy, oversized, HP with a crappy screen?

At some point, you get what you pay for. And if you expect a $1049 15" with i7 and the same specs as Apple's to have decent quality and support, you're just kidding yourself.

dsprimal
Apr 14, 2010, 10:38 AM
Will i notice much difference between a 5400rpm HDD and a 7200rpm HDD when it comes to games? will i get better frame rates and overall smoother game play with a 7200rpm? I'm only gunna game on my macbook pro. i dont have any intentions of using intensive programs.

I hear 7200's eat more power, are louder and also heat up more. just a thought... thanks!

PS: im getting the 2.66ghz 15" just dunno if the addition of a 7200rpm would benefit me much for gaming/overall.

oris
Apr 14, 2010, 10:41 AM
Why in the world would you expect Apple to make a premium, lightweight 15" computer with the highest quality screen and other internals on the planet for the same price as some generic, heavy, oversized, HP with a crappy screen?

At some point, you get what you pay for. And if you expect a $1049 15" with i7 and the same specs as Apple's to have decent quality and support, you're just kidding yourself.

I don't want apple to sell it for 1049 i want apple 2199 price but with the same specs
i do a lot of hd video i try to do it on a 512mb video macbook pro and it dint work like it was suppose to imagine on 256mb

Im just saying that for the price they should give you at least 1gb video that its the standard on 1000 USD laptops

Indus
Apr 14, 2010, 10:41 AM
I think you're spot on;). Failure to support blu-ray is a major mistake by Jobs and he knows it. Macbooks Pros are simply not competitive without it. I will probably get one for some development work but I wouldn't bother if it weren't for the iPhone/iPod/iPad.

Cheers,

jahman

It's hilarious how many people get up in arms about blu-ray. As usual, it's all about SJ, never anything rational like..


it's a higher frequency laser and the power consumption is considerably higher
due to the increased density of data on a blu ray, and the higher resolution it's more compute intensive, particularly when it needs to be downscaled for a smaller laptop screen.
removable media isn't useful for backups anymore so why upgrade it? - you need a backup; get an external drive.
the DRM is not just a technical hassle but is viewed as punitive, and anti-consumer
most people buy a pro laptop to "Do development work" not to watch movies - and plain old dvds work pretty well for that..


As the guy from Black Box said, no one in the content production industry could care less about their optical drives.

Drones to the next Big Thing, and the other clueless guys (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9662306&postcount=1102) who think a peripherial in their laptop is going to disable their ability to develop media on their MBP might whine, but I'm happy that my new laptop hasn't wasted power, internal volume, or budget on something that's really only noticable in quality home theater setups..

Eric S.
Apr 14, 2010, 10:42 AM
Do you guys know if next update would be a new generation of MBP?, as the aluminum macbooks are soon over 2 years old.

No one knew anything for sure about this update until yesterday.

The next update is pure speculation.

Hal Itosis
Apr 14, 2010, 10:44 AM
Are you dumber than Steve Jobs or just pretending? Do you have any idea how much marketing Apple has been doing from day one to video and audio for video content creators and providers? Do you have any idea how much of an investment those content creators and providers have invested in Apple over the years and are now going elsewhere by the hundreds of thousands, WITH their hundreds of thousands? I have a $15,000/YEAR computer budget that has sat for three years while Jobs does his Willie Wonka trip with iCrap I don't need, don't want, and will never ever buy.

Major motion pictures and a lot of TV HAD been edited on Mac Pros in the past, on some iMacs, and on Macbook Pros, but no longer. Those people needed Blu-ray delivery three years ago, and an OS that could handle it and REALLY be cutting edge. Not just fake it.

Try thinking outside of your uncreative little box. And get up off your knees, the Jobs shrine thing is getting old.

:apple:

Horsefeathers. If you were anything but a whiney insignificant infantile troll, you'd be happy in PC land right now... creating content as you so claim. :D You would be far too busy to hang around a Mac forum insulting people. Clearly you have a major Steve Jobs (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9662424&highlight=#post9662424) hangup which may require a professional therapist.

[Seriously, it seems this issue is strangely personal ... so let me make this clear: you're talking to the wrong guy. Keep it technical and sophisticated, and stop seeking to create a problem where none exists. You already look foolish (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9662398&postcount=1108) as it is, so there's not much more i need say.]

vipergts2207
Apr 14, 2010, 10:49 AM
These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

You're a bit off on your specs there. The 15" with i7 has 512MB of video memory not 256MB.

lilo777
Apr 14, 2010, 11:20 AM
Why in the world would you expect Apple to make a premium, lightweight 15" computer with the highest quality screen and other internals on the planet for the same price as some generic, heavy, oversized, HP with a crappy screen?

At some point, you get what you pay for. And if you expect a $1049 15" with i7 and the same specs as Apple's to have decent quality and support, you're just kidding yourself.

Why do you bother to repeat all this Apple PR nonsense?

Compare these two similarly configured computers:

MBP 15"
2.4GHz Intel Core i5
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display (1440-by-900-pixel)

Price: $1,949.00

HP Envy 15.

• Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-520M Dual Core processor (2.40GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.93GHz
• 4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
• 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 5830 Graphics - For i5 and i7-620M Processors
• 15.6" diagonal Full High Definition LED HP Anti-glare Widescreen Display (1920x1080)
• 6 Cell Lithium Ion Polymer Battery (standard)

Price: $1,524.99

SO, you get much better computer for much less. HP's battery life is not near the MBP but this must be expected given the choice of graphics card. On the other hand you can buy extra battery: either the regular one ($75) or 9 Cell HP Envy Slim Fit Extended-Life Notebook Battery - $125

As far as service is concerned, HP offers better options than Apple. For example:

2-year HP Care Pack House Call Service for HP HDX, HP TouchSmart, or HP ENVY Laptop PC. Up to two years of added convenience with in-home repair - $200

And as far as the quality is concerned, HP Envy offers this:

Magnesium alloy casing with HP Metal Etching technology
14.96" (W) x 9.60" (D) x 1.04" (H) (vs 14.35x9.82x0.95 for MBP - essentially same size)
5.17 lbs (vs 5.6 for MBP - HP Envy is lighter)

oris
Apr 14, 2010, 11:26 AM
Why do you bother to repeat all this Apple PR nonsense?

Compare these two similarly configured computers:

MBP 15"
2.4GHz Intel Core i5
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display (1440-by-900-pixel)

Price: $1,949.00

HP Envy 15.

• Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-520M Dual Core processor (2.40GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.93GHz
• 4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
• 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 5830 Graphics - For i5 and i7-620M Processors
• 15.6" diagonal Full High Definition LED HP Anti-glare Widescreen Display (1920x1080)
• 6 Cell Lithium Ion Polymer Battery (standard)

Price: $1,524.99

SO, you get much better computer for much less. HP's battery life is not near the MBP but this must be expected given the choice of graphics card. On the other hand you can buy extra battery: either the regular one ($75) or 9 Cell HP Envy Slim Fit Extended-Life Notebook Battery - $125

As far as service is concerned, HP offers better options than Apple. For example:

2-year HP Care Pack House Call Service for HP HDX, HP TouchSmart, or HP ENVY Laptop PC. Up to two years of added convenience with in-home repair - $200

And as far as the quality is concerned, HP Envy offers this:

Magnesium alloy casing with HP Metal Etching technology
14.96" (W) x 9.60" (D) x 1.04" (H) (vs 14.35x9.82x0.95 for MBP - essentially same size)
5.17 lbs (vs 5.6 for MBP - HP Envy is lighter)

HP - Pavilion Laptop with Intel® Core™ i7 Processor - Black
Model: dv6-2190us
Intel® Core™ i7 Processor - 2.8 GHZ
1024MB (dedicated) VIDEO CARD
1049.00

Mod

Terminal.app
Apr 14, 2010, 11:32 AM
Because the higher the resolution the tinier many things get. There is not any sort of universal scaling available. I had to turn the resolution down 2 notches on my last gen MBP so I could read it comfortably.

Even the third party apps that supposedly address font size etc don't work reliably.

My biggest beef is that to get anti glare I have to pay $150 more and take the high res with it. I don't need or want high res and I think it is a ****ty thing of Apple to force you to buy the "package".

since they dropped matte as a standard option many people have been complaining about it and it's lack of even a paid possibility on the 13". So what does Apple do? They make it cost even MORE and still don't make it available on the 13". Personally this single thing thing has made me go back to Windows. Not because I like the OS but because I am not willing to be nickle and dimed for a feature I need for comfort. The premium has exceeded the worth in my eyes and lots of other people's apparently.

:rolleyes:

If all you do with your computer is watch YouTube videos, I can see where low-res is fine. A fairly large percentage of us use our computers for actual work, and we've found that the more space there is on our screens, the better our workflow is.

Maserati7200
Apr 14, 2010, 11:36 AM
Replies in red.
It's hilarious how many people get up in arms about blu-ray. As usual, it's all about SJ, never anything rational like..


it's a higher frequency laser and the power consumption is considerably higher
Your only using the laser when you watch a movie. And the power consumption difference is negligible. And even if it isn't, why do you care if we have the option or not?
due to the increased density of data on a blu ray, and the higher resolution it's more compute intensive, particularly when it needs to be downscaled for a smaller laptop screen.
Again, that's would most likely be a minimal difference in consumption
removable media isn't useful for backups anymore so why upgrade it? - you need a backup; get an external drive.
It is if you want to back something important up for the long term. Hard drives die. If you protect discs, they won't.
the DRM is not just a technical hassle but is viewed as punitive, and anti-consumer
Yeah, are you forgetting that Apple sells TV shows that are all DRM'd? Additionally, one could easily remove the DRM on blu ray with software. Not the same case with iTunes. And with iTunes you are confined to Apple devices to watch your media. You can watch blu ray on anything that has a BR drive. Did I mention that Apple limits you to 5 devices? :rolleyes:
most people buy a pro laptop to "Do development work" not to watch movies - and plain old dvds work pretty well for that..
Now, if I already have Blu ray discs for my HDTV, why do i have to buy another DVD just so I can watch it on my laptop? Really?

Hal Itosis
Apr 14, 2010, 11:53 AM
I have a $15,000/YEAR computer budget that has sat for three years while Jobs does his Willie Wonka trip with iCrap I don't need, don't want, and will never ever buy.

I think you're spot on ;). Failure to support blu-ray is a major mistake by Jobs and he knows it. Macbooks Pros are simply not competitive without it. I will probably get one for some development work but I wouldn't bother if it weren't for the iPhone/iPod/iPad.

@jahman:

Beyond a desire for Blu-ray, it would appear that you and xbjllb are on totally different pages there. Therefore, the term 'spot on' seems somewhat inappropriate [especially since it also appeared to condone his degrading remarks, which i've removed from that quote.]

The Blu-ray issue seems to have gotten a few people worked up into a frenzy. That's okay, if Macs ever need them they'll be added. knowledgeable Macoholic was *expecting* Blu-ray this time around anyway. So —in that light —it's much ado about nothing.]

I think that what's most upsetting to the pro-Blu-ray crowd here (which they may not consciously realize) is the simple fact that: nothing they say matters.

[honestly:[I] "Failure to support blu-ray is a major mistake by Jobs and he knows it." <-- you believe that? :cool: ]

CrazyChester
Apr 14, 2010, 12:03 PM
These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

Well, for heaven's sake buy the HP and quit griping.

xIGmanIx
Apr 14, 2010, 12:05 PM
i am glad for the updates, but i voted negative and here is my reasoning for it

1. No BD - i am prosumer and would like to be able to create content in BD for viewing on my HDTV and to backup data
2. No USB 3.0 - i don't see why this should have to be in another update and why there is only 2 USB ports on a "pro" machine
3. no QuadCore iX options - maybe not standard, but i would willing sacrifice some battery life for better processors
4. Video card - i don't see why apple isn't offering 1GB cards in their "pro" machines.

I might still pick one up because i would like to have both OS's and software available to me, but i might just go with sony or HP.

Digital Skunk
Apr 14, 2010, 12:24 PM
1. No BD - i am prosumer and would like to be able to create content in BD for viewing on my HDTV and to backup data

There are external options for BD burning. If you had said consumer, I'd left you alone, but a PRO or prosumer (who think there needs to be a distinction between professional and consumer in terms of hardware) should be looking elsewhere for BD creation, and there are many option, including slimline burners that work inside the MBP. Couple that with Toast for the consumer and/or Encore DVD for the professional and you have your setup.

There's no reason to be waiting for Apple on this now.

2. No USB 3.0 - i don't see why this should have to be in another update and why there is only 2 USB ports on a "pro" machine

I agree 100%, but there is that express card 34 slot. It's only on the 17" but Apple wants to push high end users toward the 17" MBP. If the need were that serious, one would have a 17" MBP with express card slot and USB3 adaptor.

Also, just because Apple sticks PRO at the end of the machine doesn't mean it's high end. Apple's laptop lineup has been middle of the road ever since the switch to Intel.

3. no QuadCore iX options - maybe not standard, but i would willing sacrifice some battery life for better processors

Again I agree 100%, but i think we can expect Apple to continually be one step behind the PC market on top end hardware.

4. Video card - i don't see why apple isn't offering 1GB cards in their "pro" machines.

See previous two comments

I might still pick one up because i would like to have both OS's and software available to me, but i might just go with sony or HP.

This isn't a flame or anything, especially since I'd love to have USB 3.0 eSATA, quad core 16GB RAM . . . . Dell Covet in an Apple Macbook Pro 17" etc. but we have to remember that this is Apple.

These simple speed bumps have been the standard for four years now.

praetorx
Apr 14, 2010, 12:45 PM
Has anyone had his/her order shipped yet? I ordered mine yesterday 8AM and status wasn't updated yet.

Wildeye
Apr 14, 2010, 12:49 PM
Has anyone had his/her order shipped yet? I ordered mine yesterday 8AM and status wasn't updated yet.
I ordered an 15" MBP with 7i, 8MB and 512 SSD. It will be interesting how long it takes to get this one?

nj-mac-user
Apr 14, 2010, 12:56 PM
Don't you guys realize putting a quad core in a MBP would give us the same issues the Envy 15 has? Too much heat and horrible battery life.

Eric S.
Apr 14, 2010, 01:08 PM
These simple speed bumps have been the standard for four years now.

Agreed. "Magical and revolutionary" have moved on to new markets.

tvh13
Apr 14, 2010, 01:30 PM
Are you dumber than Steve Jobs or just pretending? Do you have any idea how much marketing Apple has been doing from day one to video and audio for video content creators and providers? Do you have any idea how much of an investment those content creators and providers have invested in Apple over the years and are now going elsewhere by the hundreds of thousands, WITH their hundreds of thousands? I have a $15,000/YEAR computer budget that has sat for three years while Jobs does his Willie Wonka trip with iCrap I don't need, don't want, and will never ever buy.

Major motion pictures and a lot of TV HAD been edited on Mac Pros in the past, on some iMacs, and on Macbook Pros, but no longer. Those people needed Blu-ray delivery three years ago, and an OS that could handle it and REALLY be cutting edge. Not just fake it.

Try thinking outside of your uncreative little box. And get up off your knees, the Jobs shrine thing is getting old.

:apple:

Sounds like these aren't for you.

Digital Skunk
Apr 14, 2010, 01:33 PM
Don't you guys realize putting a quad core in a MBP would give us the same issues the Envy 15 has? Too much heat and horrible battery life.

True, but some are willing to make the sacrifice. Besides, it's been a while since we've had cool machines sitting on our laps ourselves.

Agreed. "Magical and revolutionary" have moved on to new markets.

Right, and if you want the Mac experience you'll just have to find ways around the limitations.

Hal Itosis
Apr 14, 2010, 01:49 PM
It would have been worth it for him if the i7 had been a quad, since that gives him nice speed boost in his type of work.

A nice speed boost i can dig, but what is the measured difference (really)?

The Truth About Dual Core Vs Quad Core Processors (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Truth-About-Dual-Core-Vs-Quad-Core-Processors&id=3702038)

Anyway (whatever it may be), i doubt it's enough to lose any sleep over. ;)

alent1234
Apr 14, 2010, 01:51 PM
Why do you bother to repeat all this Apple PR nonsense?

Compare these two similarly configured computers:

MBP 15"
2.4GHz Intel Core i5
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display (1440-by-900-pixel)

Price: $1,949.00

HP Envy 15.

• Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-520M Dual Core processor (2.40GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.93GHz
• 4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
• 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
• 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 5830 Graphics - For i5 and i7-620M Processors
• 15.6" diagonal Full High Definition LED HP Anti-glare Widescreen Display (1920x1080)
• 6 Cell Lithium Ion Polymer Battery (standard)

Price: $1,524.99

SO, you get much better computer for much less. HP's battery life is not near the MBP but this must be expected given the choice of graphics card. On the other hand you can buy extra battery: either the regular one ($75) or 9 Cell HP Envy Slim Fit Extended-Life Notebook Battery - $125

As far as service is concerned, HP offers better options than Apple. For example:

2-year HP Care Pack House Call Service for HP HDX, HP TouchSmart, or HP ENVY Laptop PC. Up to two years of added convenience with in-home repair - $200

And as far as the quality is concerned, HP Envy offers this:

Magnesium alloy casing with HP Metal Etching technology
14.96" (W) x 9.60" (D) x 1.04" (H) (vs 14.35x9.82x0.95 for MBP - essentially same size)
5.17 lbs (vs 5.6 for MBP - HP Envy is lighter)

the at home service is after the online diagnostic software says there is a problem. read the small print. the upgrade to 3 years is a lot more.

It's $2063 for the i7 Envy with a 15" screen. and that doesn't include Windows 7 Ultimate so you will still have to buy a photo editing, dvd authoring and movie creation programs. So the lack of a 1GB graphics card evens out

i would prefer the graphics card, but with this much money at stake i would never buy an HP laptop after my experience. and with my education discount it's $2436 for the MBP including Applecare and Tax, compared to $2682 for the HP Envy including tax and the 3 year worthless HP warranty

Operating system Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64-bit edit
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-720QM Quad Core processor (1.6GHz, 6MB L3 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 2.8 GHz edit
Memory 4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm) edit
Hard drive 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection edit
Graphics card 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 5830 Graphics - For i7 Processors edit
Display 15.6" diagonal High Definition LED HP Brightview Widescreen Display (1366x768) edit
External optical drive External Tray Super Multi 8X DVD+/-R/RW w/Double Layer Support with 2 USB Ports edit
Personalization Webcam Only edit
Networking Intel Wireless-N Card with Bluetooth edit
Included Software Bundle HP QuickWeb, Corel VideoStudio Pro X2, Corel Paintshop Pro X2, Stardock My Colors edit
Keyboard HP Color Matching Keyboard edit
Primary battery One 6 Cell Lithium Ion Polymer Battery + One 9 Cell HP Envy Slim Fit Extended-Life Notebook Battery edit
OS and recovery media System Recovery DVD with Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64-bit edit
Productivity software No Productivity Software

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 01:54 PM
It's $2063 for the i7 Envy with a 15" screen. and that doesn't include Windows 7 Ultimate so you will still have to buy a photo editing, dvd authoring and movie creation programs.Home Premium includes this software. I've edited and authored DVDs from my DVR recordings.

Freakyslidey
Apr 14, 2010, 01:59 PM
Does anyone here know how long it will take, for the new Macbook Pros to be available in stores around the globe?

alent1234
Apr 14, 2010, 01:59 PM
Home Premium includes this software. I've edited and authored DVDs from my DVR recordings.

new price is $2552 for the Envy. i'll still take the MBP though. 1GB graphics is useless if the laptop breaks and HP tells you it was your fault even though there is no damage to it.

HP server and other corporate support is very good. the consumer support i would never trust again

dsprimal
Apr 14, 2010, 02:00 PM
will mail from my college with my name and address on it allow me to get a student discount when i go to the apple store in person? i don't have a picture ID from school. so i dunno what other things i can do to prove im a student?

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 02:04 PM
new price is $2552 for the Envy. i'll still take the MBP though. 1GB graphics is useless if the laptop breaks and HP tells you it was your fault even though there is no damage to it.

HP server and other corporate support is very good. the consumer support i would never trust againI don't have an opinion on HP's support. They were very prompt in responding to a software issue I had 6 years ago. I haven't dealt with them involving hardware. Don't the have accidental coverage as well?

nicegoogly
Apr 14, 2010, 02:04 PM
Agreed. "Magical and revolutionary" have moved on to new markets.

As much as I love all of their products, Apple has a flair for the dramatic. They made a big deal out of this iPod Big, when it is an iPod touch with better graphical interface. I would love to have one, but with an iPhone and a MBP, there is no dire need (for me). These updates, not exactly exciting, is not a fault on Apple's part. Prior to the MBP Unibody, the MBP looked the same and had relatively identical features for a very long time, just some of the guts would get improvements. Nothing groundbreaking. Same here, nothing groundbreaking (yes, matter of opinion). No one should blame Apple if they find these updates lame, Apple never called these improvements "magical". A little ostentatious if they had. Although I think they went overboard with what they believe the iPad to be and what it is in reality. This MBP Unibody has been out only a year and a half. I expected them to keep this form/feature factor the same at least for another year. With all the iPad and iPhone advancements expected, I don't see how they could keep this line looking and acting the same but for Video Card/Processor/Hard Drive enhancements over a year.

To those that are upset with the pricing...what did you expect? We got a price drop because the of the economic downturn in 2008-2009. Now we are recovering. Now you pay the Apple tax. I gladly pay it. My MBP's over the years have always been pretty. Maybe Apple charges a lot for what you would pay a lot less for in a Windows PC or laptop, but you don't get the biggest piece: the OS. I have never been more productive than on Mac, and I am not a Windows hater, either. I don't do graphic design or photography as my bread and butter. I switched my law offices over four years ago and couldn't be happier.:D

Great Dave
Apr 14, 2010, 02:20 PM
...
With blu-ray already being adopted at twice the rate DVD was for the same time period a year ago, that means that blu-ray is outpacing DVD adoption (when compared to the same point in either products life) even faster now.


Don't forget that the Dell has an RGBLED backlit display and the MBP is only edge-lit ;) HUGE difference.

Is it a huge difference? I have not seen the Dells. I know that Dell's lcds gets lots of positive responses, even from people here.

I know my neighbor has been ribbing me that his dell is far superior.

I just think this update was a let down - a huge let down. We are still behind.

Apple has a huge cash reserve, can't they spin off their iPad/iPhone division and concentrate on their other hardware and software?

arian19
Apr 14, 2010, 02:34 PM
Macbook Pro 17"
2.66 Core i7
8bg ram
500gb @7200
:))))

true777
Apr 14, 2010, 02:41 PM
I think I'll stick with my 17" MBP 3.06 GHz. This update isn't offering enough to make me want to upgrade - too bad. Hope the next update will offer enough of a spec bump to make me want to switch.

dsprimal
Apr 14, 2010, 02:47 PM
i wonder how noisy the 7200rpm HDD's will be =/

Trojita
Apr 14, 2010, 02:56 PM
new price is $2552 for the Envy. i'll still take the MBP though. 1GB graphics is useless if the laptop breaks and HP tells you it was your fault even though there is no damage to it.

HP server and other corporate support is very good. the consumer support i would never trust again


lol anyone that pays that much for an Envy is a dumbass.

I'm loving my i5 Envy and I'm glad I didn't wait it out for this piss poor release after so many people on this forum were waiting for how long for something at least decent.

iMacmatician
Apr 14, 2010, 03:31 PM
Also, just because Apple sticks PRO at the end of the machine doesn't mean it's high end. Apple's laptop lineup has been middle of the road ever since the switch to Intel.The CPU used to be high-end relative to Intel's mobile CPU lineup in 2006 and much of 2007, then Intel added higher-end and hotter CPUs but Apple didn't follow suit.

Again I agree 100%, but i think we can expect Apple to continually be one step behind the PC market on top end hardware.

These simple speed bumps have been the standard for four years now.That will probably continue for at least the next update, at least for the CPU. We may see quad-core in 2012.

TheHoff
Apr 14, 2010, 03:47 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?

He is waiting for you to buy it. The "helpful link" that mosx posted to Newegg was a Commission Junction affiliate link so he gets a % of every purchase made at Newegg that someone makes from this site, for probably up to a month.

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 03:57 PM
He is waiting for you to buy it. The "helpful link" that mosx posted to Newegg was a Commission Junction affiliate link so he gets a % of every purchase made at Newegg that someone makes from this site, for probably up to a month.Perhaps you should try posting a link to NewEgg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215

donileo
Apr 14, 2010, 04:02 PM
after reading through these forums it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people complaining about these updates. however i do understand why this is happening and I think this information should be made a sticky (though in a more easier to understand post)

1. the reason why the 13" still has Core 2 Duo technology?

Nvidia and Intel had a chipset dispute basically saying that Nvidia can no longer make any integrated graphics chips for processors using the QuickPath Interconnect.. in other words Core i3, i5, i7 mobile processors.

previous gen 13" MacbookPro has the Core2Duo and Nvidia 9400m integrated graphics which is a great combination of graphics, performance, and battery life up to 8hrs. However.. think about this... if apple were to integrate the Core i3/i5 in the new 13" MBP they can no longer use any Nvidia integrated graphics chip and would have to use a dedicated one instead.

dedicated ones increase the cost and lower the battery life. two things they dont want.. Apple does not like backing down on their word.. in other words if they gave you 8hrs battery life last gen they will not give you 6 or 7 next..

on a performance/power consumption perspective NVIDIA beats AMD in this mobile sector. so Nvidia is the choice for Laptops

on the processor front: Core i3/i5 vs Core 2 duo may give only 10-20% performance increase in limited scenarios.. users might not even see get to see the effects of this

on the gpu front: a custom designed Nvidia 320M is up to 50% faster than the 9400m, not only that but it saves power and Snow leopard can take advantage of it..

what decision do you make when you put all these together factoring costs and performance?

50% GPU performance increase is better then 10-20% CPU performance increase which might not even be noticeable.

so Apple upgrades the GPU, keeps the old CPU, and gets even battery life..
which in my opinion was an excellent move! and in reality is not their fault.. blame the Nvidia vs Intel Quickpath Interconnect Dispute that is still going on.

2. Why has apple not gone quadcore?

Well actually my opinion is a bit split on this one. I believe apple should have at least gave users a build-to-order (BTO) option on the 17" for this one and I believe they will do it soon maybe by the next refresh or in less than 6 months.

Aside from the 17" why no quad core? Simple.. For those wishing for the Uber machine with QuadCore i7, 8GB DDR3 and 1TB SSD. Have you considered what kind of battery life you get with these systems, let alone power dissipation? Obviously not.. Take one of your similarly specced HP systems and how much battery life do you get 2-4 hrs max. After Apples laptops now give users 8-10hrs battery life do you expect them to give users systems with 50% of the battery life they are giving now..?? nope.. not going to happen.

I understand people want desktop replacements, but truth is if you want a desktop replacement... go with the iMac or MacPro. those are way better at really processor / graphics intensive tasks.. if you hate Apple which everyone is entitled to their own opinion then don't get Apple.. very simple

in the Computer / Tech world we all wish of systems that can magically handle everything we throw on it but unfortunately thats not the way it goes.

Sacrifices always have to be made, its just your choice to find exactly what you need and select the best tool (laptop/desktop) that best fits your needs.

I used Windows for almost 12 yrs before i started using mac and i agree Windows can do certain things Mac can't ~ there are special Windows programs some of us need that aren't on the Mac. But heres what I realized overall:

Apple Computer Systems can run Mac OS X (which i like a lot) AND Windows..
not the other way around... i tried creating a hackintosh.. not the same thing..

3. Finally.. for those Salivating at the Sony Vaio Z.. I definitely agree that is a reallllllly niiiice laptop.. super powerful for the weight and specs.

However I'll tell you from my experience after I bought it last year and decided to return it.

Here are the reasons against it for me:

1.) I had an audio issue from the headphone jack where I would be getting noise coming out of it when playing music and connected to power. Called Sony and they had no fix for it. This was really bad for me because I had it plugged in to my Home Theater and I listen to music a lot so really bad... Macbooks dont have this issue. Its possible the new Z's don't have this issue.

2.) It just runs Windows.. I like Mac OS X too much for it not to be on my laptop and the Sony Z only runs Windows. Macbooks on the other hand run OS X and Windows beautifully.. the killer feature for me..

What does this all conclude for me? In my opinion, overall, the Macbook Pro is the ultimate laptop to have. If you don't have enough money, get whatever suits your needs but if possible this is the machine to get from the overall perspective..

Case in reference: I converted two people to macbooks, both with very little knowledge of computers and since then they have never looked back..

Hope that clarifies things for some people..

mosx
Apr 14, 2010, 04:11 PM
Sure you gain horizontal space, but you lose vertical space except for 1600x900 from 1400x900. And listen, a lot of people do real work on their computers that requires hight. I have a 13" MBP, with a hight of 800 pixels. That's barely enough, I wish I had a 15" screen. Reducing that to 768 would not be a good thing, let me assure you.

Look, this argument just doesn't hold water at all. I work with text, coding, etc. all the time. And the argument for a few extra vertical lines of resolution just doesn't work when a WIDER display allows you to have more open at a time.

The more windows I can have displayed side by side is a lot better than being able to pull a window down a little bit more. 16x10 is just an inefficient waste of space.

Because most people use their computers for things more useful than watching movies

Yeah. And the funny thing is that since screens went 16x9, computer sales are UP. People want proper widescreen.

And besides, a lot of movies have an ever wider ratio. Even with 16x9 you'll see black bars.

Thats true. However, on a 16x10 screen, like the MacBook screen, the image of a 2/35:1 film is as small as it is on a 4x3 TV. Not the case with a proper 16x9 screen.

Look at the iMacs. The 24" iMac had a 1920x1200 resolution, now the 21.5 has a 1920x1080 resolution. You just lost pixels. The 27" iMac has a 2560x1440 resolution, and the 30" Cinema display has a 2560x1600 display.

And guess what? The iMacs are selling better than ever now. Apparently Apple made the right move.

I hate that the new iMacs are 16x9, and hope that their notebooks don't go that route

Well, you're in a very very small minority. The rest of the industry has moved to 16x9. They did it virtually overnight. Sales are up. Apple did it on the iMac and sales are up. The only two places you really can't find 16x9 now are on Apple notebooks and Apple "Cinema" displays. But its only a matter of time with them.

I'm sure Apple already has working prototypes.

But notebooks have lower resolutions, I don't want to lose vertical space for horizontal space, even if it does give you more pixels in some case. And I'm sure most people who actually work on their computers instead of d**cking around agree with me.

Again, your argument just doesn't work. I've lost NOTHING in "work" (if working on a computer can even be called "work") by going 16x9 and gained everything when it comes to entertainment. You don't know how many times I've had to explain to people why their widescreen movies look so small on 16x10 displays and how those very same people jump at the opportunity to replace their system with a 16x9 display. And yes these are people who "work" on their computers.

Just like me. 16x10 should have never been introduced to begin with.

As part of a speaking tour at universities across the United States, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates sat down with Princeton's newspaper to discuss the road ahead. When asked why Microsoft chose to support HD DVD over Sony's Blu-ray format, Gates replied that Blu-ray's copyright protection scheme is "anti-consumer."

Which is ironic because HD DVD used the same copy protection as blu-ray disc. HDCP, AACS. BD+ wasn't even around at that time and its something that doesn't affect anyone.

Or... Welcome to Windows 7 Forums:
"The HDCP system is easy to understand and it is annoying." . . . <<snip>> . . . the player, and every other device in the signal transmission train (videocard, monitor, etc) must be HDCP compliant."


Which is exactly the same for iTunes HD downloads. So its okay for Apple to enforce the same type of HDCP requirements for HD video but its not okay for blu-ray to do it?

Frankly, a little less troll-speak and a little more candor would be helpful here.

You need to take your own advice and not cherry pick replies.

It's funny how you call me a troll and ignore the fact that Apple enforces the same HDCP requirements for their "high definition" content. http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/17/apple-itunes-multimedia-throwing-hdcp-flags-on-new-macbook-mac/ http://gizmodo.com/5177075/itunes-hd-movies-wont-play-on-older-non+hdcp-monitors

You know what you need for HDCP compliance? A modern videocard with a chipset manufacturered provided driver (also known as a driver directly from nvidia or AMD), a non-Apple manufactured display from within the last 4 years, and an HDMI or DVI cable. Thats it. Scary stuff, huh?

Is it a huge difference? I have not seen the Dells. I know that Dell's lcds gets lots of positive responses, even from people here.

Well, Dell's RGBLED displays are some of the few that can claim true 100% color reproduction.

With Apple's edge-lit LED LCD displays, they're just giving you a thinner display that uses less power. RGBLED actually has hundreds of LEDs behind the LCD panel that can change color along with the picture being displayed on the LCD. Obviously that enhances the color quality dramatically. But none of Apple's displays use this technology. They're all edge-lit.

He is waiting for you to buy it. The "helpful link" that mosx posted to Newegg was a Commission Junction affiliate link so he gets a % of every purchase made at Newegg that someone makes from this site, for probably up to a month.

rofl I did no such thing. All of the links I have posted are DIRECT to newegg. I don't get squat out of anything.

lilo777
Apr 14, 2010, 04:11 PM
the at home service is after the online diagnostic software says there is a problem.

And this is a problem? How? Obviously it makes sense to do quick online diagnostic.


the upgrade to 3 years is a lot more.


Yes, but it's a much better service than Applecare. HP plans are different. Applecare style plan is offered only for two years and it's just $200.


It's $2063 for the i7 Envy with a 15" screen.


You got confused here which happens a lot because of the new Intel naming convention. The i7 that you selected is totally different from what Apple uses. Apple uses dual core Arrandale chips (available for Envy too). What you selected is a quad core Crarkdale chip. It'a a much more powerful chip which costs much more. Besides, in my comparison both laptops had identical i5 chip.


and that doesn't include Windows 7 Ultimate


Not only you do not need Ultimate, you do not need a Professional edition either. Unless you need features like "Location Aware Printing", "Offline Files and Folder redirection", "Windows Server domain joining" etc. So, yes, Windows 7 has a lot to offer and some people might need it but mostly it's for enterprise.


so you will still have to buy a photo editing, dvd authoring and movie creation programs.


Last time I checked Photoshop was not free for OS X either. And if you need something simpler, there is plenty of free stuff to choose from (like Picasa etc.)

osuskates
Apr 14, 2010, 04:32 PM
When a friend ordered a customized 15" Macbook Pro yesterday (April 14th), the estimated shipping timeframe was within 24 hours. When he checked back today (April 15th), the timeframe had slipped to 2-4 business day!

Great Dave
Apr 14, 2010, 04:35 PM
...
Well, Dell's RGBLED displays are some of the few that can claim true 100% color reproduction.

With Apple's edge-lit LED LCD displays, they're just giving you a thinner display that uses less power. RGBLED actually has hundreds of LEDs behind the LCD panel that can change color along with the picture being displayed on the LCD. Obviously that enhances the color quality dramatically. But none of Apple's displays use this technology. They're all edge-lit.
...

I have now talked to a few people and done some research.

Wow! This is a huge feature. Why is this not part of the Apple "Pro" machine's specs.

Why aren't more creative "Pro"fessionals clamoring for this?

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 04:45 PM
after reading through these forums it never ceases to amaze me the amount of people complaining about these updates. however i do understand why this is happening and I think this information should be made a sticky (though in a more easier to understand post)

1. the reason why the 13" still has Core 2 Duo technology?

Nvidia and Intel had a chipset dispute basically saying that Nvidia can no longer make any integrated graphics chips for processors using the QuickPath Interconnect.. in other words Core i3, i5, i7 mobile processors.

previous gen 13" MacbookPro has the Core2Duo and Nvidia 9400m integrated graphics which is a great combination of graphics, performance, and battery life up to 8hrs. However.. think about this... if apple were to integrate the Core i3/i5 in the new 13" MBP they can no longer use any Nvidia integrated graphics chip and would have to use a dedicated one instead.

dedicated ones increase the cost and lower the battery life. two things they dont want.. Apple does not like backing down on their word.. in other words if they gave you 8hrs battery life last gen they will not give you 6 or 7 next..

on a performance/power consumption perspective NVIDIA beats AMD in this mobile sector. so Nvidia is the choice for Laptops



A: The MacBook Pro 13"s are using a discreet 320M. The 9400M blurb is meaningless as it doesnt have switching graphics. They could be using an Intel chipset for all we know.

B: The Ati Mobility series uses less power for more perfromance than nVidia M series.

C: ATi and Intel graphics are in far more laptops than nVidia right now.

KnightWRX
Apr 14, 2010, 05:40 PM
A: The MacBook Pro 13"s are using a discreet 320M. The 9400M blurb is meaningless as it doesnt have switching graphics. They could be using an Intel chipset for all we know.


The 320M in the MBP 13" is not a discrete solution, it's an integrated solution. The poster you were responding to was right. If Apple had went Core i3/i5 in the 13", they'd have had to either stuff a discrete nVidia chip in there or use Intel HD graphics which are barely on par with a 9400m.

This was confirmed by Steve himself in his interview. Maybe all the whiners still don't get it. There would be no nVidia graphics in the MBP 13" if it had used a Core i3/i5.

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 05:46 PM
A: The MacBook Pro 13"s are using a discreet 320M. The 9400M blurb is meaningless as it doesnt have switching graphics. They could be using an Intel chipset for all we know.

B: The Ati Mobility series uses less power for more perfromance than nVidia M series.

C: ATi and Intel graphics are in far more laptops than nVidia right now.

The 320M in the MBP 13" is not a discrete solution, it's an integrated solution. The poster you were responding to was right. If Apple had went Core i3/i5 in the 13", they'd have had to either stuff a discrete nVidia chip in there or use Intel HD graphics which are barely on par with a 9400m.The GeForce 320M looks like it is literally the rumored MCP89 for Core 2/Atom that was touted in July/August of 2009. Things really headed south after Intel denied nVidia the license for QPI/DMI. There was a MCP99 in the cards as well for Arrandale/Clarksfield. Both parts were rumored to be a 32/48 shader GPU based on nVidia's newer 40 nm GT21x cores.

Thats the first time I've seen that.

I wasn't even aware nVidia was making chipsets for intel anymore, especially since nVidia announced they would be withdrawing from the Mobo market. There is a footnote that it uses shared video RAM. The MCP89 is a drop in pin per pin for the MCP79. No need to redesign the logicboard. nVidia can make chipsets for the front side bus and they more than likely have a contract with Apple to provide.

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 05:47 PM
The 320M in the MBP 13" is not a discrete solution, it's an integrated solution. The poster you were responding to was right. If Apple had went Core i3/i5 in the 13", they'd have had to either stuff a discrete nVidia chip in there or use Intel HD graphics which are barely on par with a 9400m.

This was confirmed by Steve himself in his interview. Maybe all the whiners still don't get it. There would be no nVidia graphics in the MBP 13" if it had used a Core i3/i5.

Thats the first time I've seen that.

I wasn't even aware nVidia was making chipsets for intel anymore, especially since nVidia announced they would be withdrawing from the Mobo market.

KnightWRX
Apr 14, 2010, 05:56 PM
Thats the first time I've seen that.

I wasn't even aware nVidia was making chipsets for intel anymore, especially since nVidia announced they would be withdrawing from the Mobo market.

They don't make chipsets for new Intel processors, but they haven't stopped making chipsets for older processors for which they made chipsets before.

And as Eidorian states, it says so on Apple's tech spec page :

NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory5

5Memory available to Mac OS X may vary depending on graphics needs. Minimum graphics memory usage is 256MB.

So now, again, the MBP 13" uses a Core 2 Duo so that it can use nVidia graphics. Otherwise, it would have a Core i3/i5 with sub par graphics. Guess which performs best ?

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 06:08 PM
And as Eidorian states, it says so on Apple's tech spec page :



So now, again, the MBP 13" uses a Core 2 Duo so that it can use nVidia graphics. Otherwise, it would have a Core i3/i5 with sub par graphics. Guess which performs best ?

That bit isnt relevant at all.

Hal Itosis
Apr 14, 2010, 06:09 PM
Look, this argument just doesn't hold water at all. I work with text, coding, etc. all the time. And the argument for a few extra vertical lines of resolution just doesn't work when a WIDER display allows you to have more open at a time.

The more windows I can have displayed side by side is a lot better than being able to pull a window down a little bit more. 16x10 is just an inefficient waste of space.



Yeah. And the funny thing is that since screens went 16x9, computer sales are UP. People want proper widescreen.



Thats true. However, on a 16x10 screen, like the MacBook screen, the image of a 2/35:1 film is as small as it is on a 4x3 TV. Not the case with a proper 16x9 screen.



And guess what? The iMacs are selling better than ever now. Apparently Apple made the right move.



Well, you're in a very very small minority. The rest of the industry has moved to 16x9. They did it virtually overnight. Sales are up. Apple did it on the iMac and sales are up. The only two places you really can't find 16x9 now are on Apple notebooks and Apple "Cinema" displays. But its only a matter of time with them.

I'm sure Apple already has working prototypes.



Again, your argument just doesn't work. I've lost NOTHING in "work" (if working on a computer can even be called "work") by going 16x9 and gained everything when it comes to entertainment. You don't know how many times I've had to explain to people why their widescreen movies look so small on 16x10 displays and how those very same people jump at the opportunity to replace their system with a 16x9 display. And yes these are people who "work" on their computers.

Just like me. 16x10 should have never been introduced to begin with.



Which is ironic because HD DVD used the same copy protection as blu-ray disc. HDCP, AACS. BD+ wasn't even around at that time and its something that doesn't affect anyone.



Which is exactly the same for iTunes HD downloads. So its okay for Apple to enforce the same type of HDCP requirements for HD video but its not okay for blu-ray to do it?



You need to take your own advice and not cherry pick replies.

It's funny how you call me a troll and ignore the fact that Apple enforces the same HDCP requirements for their "high definition" content. http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/17/apple-itunes-multimedia-throwing-hdcp-flags-on-new-macbook-mac/ http://gizmodo.com/5177075/itunes-hd-movies-wont-play-on-older-non+hdcp-monitors

You know what you need for HDCP compliance? A modern videocard with a chipset manufacturered provided driver (also known as a driver directly from nvidia or AMD), a non-Apple manufactured display from within the last 4 years, and an HDMI or DVI cable. Thats it. Scary stuff, huh?



Well, Dell's RGBLED displays are some of the few that can claim true 100% color reproduction.

With Apple's edge-lit LED LCD displays, they're just giving you a thinner display that uses less power. RGBLED actually has hundreds of LEDs behind the LCD panel that can change color along with the picture being displayed on the LCD. Obviously that enhances the color quality dramatically. But none of Apple's displays use this technology. They're all edge-lit.

Holy cow. I gather you're highly enamored of 16x9 and Blu-ray, etc. :rolleyes: That's all very fascinating and so forth... but it still seems like a lot of talk which accomplishes nothing (or very little of practical value). It just doesn't matter to anyone who doesn't care about that stuff. What... you expect Mac users (with tons of Mac OS experience and software) to rush out and purchase some Windows-running PeeCee laptop just because it can play Blu-Ray discs and has a 16x9 display? Sure.

You're so wrapped up in your mission that you've misinterpreted stuff I said. Of course iTunes movies have the same protections... because the movie business moguls demand it. [and I never said it didn't.] But *your* claim was that all such complaints about Blu-Ray came from Mac users spreading FUD. I proved you wrong... but obviously you didn't follow those links or read what PeeCee users said. You didn't acknowledge those facts. Ergo, the troll accusation shall stand as delivered.

Anyway, no matter how many pages you type about 16x9 it won't change anything. I'll be getting a new MBP because it's the right laptop for me. What you choose to buy doesn't interest me so much. [even less at this point.]

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 06:10 PM
That bit isnt relevant at all.I guess we're waiting for a take apart and GPU-Z screen shot then?

What exactly would you like to know? I'll agree that Intel and ATI have a much higher mobile share right now and that ATI has better performance/watt.

The IGPs we have today are a far cry from early "graphic processors". We're talking about dedidated hardware shaders only limited by their shared video RAM, in some instances dedicated sideport memory, or low budget shader count.

mski349
Apr 14, 2010, 06:16 PM
FINALLY!!! WHAT EVERYONE WAS WAITING FOR. THE UPDATE!!! NOW I REAAAALY REGRET GETTING MY 15"MBP TWO MONTHS AGO... SHOULD HAVE WAITED, SO I COULD DO SOOOO MUCH MORE...or not. Hahaha, silly nerds. What a HUGE update(NOT!). Let's see, who can download a photoshopped pic of Megan Fox or stream the latest Attack of the Show w/ Munn eating hot-dogs faster. Uh, mine is pretty quick.... pretty sure I can wait the extra second longer to punch the clown that all the new MBP's seem to have on mine. Comical...

KnightWRX
Apr 14, 2010, 06:20 PM
That bit isnt relevant at all.

Not relevant to what ? It's basically the complaint with the 13" and it's because people misunderstand why it's using a Core2Duo. It is using it so that it can have an nVidia IGP, otherwise it would have Intel's IGP, which would make it perform much worse in games and other GPU intensive apps.

Why increase the CPU's speed by 15% if you lose 85% graphics performance ? This isn't 1996 anymore, GPUs nowadays are a much greater factor in performance than CPUs in most consumer related tasks.

Heck, until 10 minutes ago, you had the same misunderstanding in thinking the 320M was a discrete part when it isn't.

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 06:20 PM
I guess we're waiting for a take apart and GPU-Z screen shot then?

What exactly would you like to know? I'll agree that Intel and ATI have a much higher mobile share right now and that ATI has better performance/watt.

The IGPs we have today are a far cry from early "graphic processors". We're talking about dedidated hardware shaders only limited by their shared video RAM, in some instances dedicated sideport memory, or low budget shader count.

I made the mistake of thinking the 320M was discreet as Ithough nVidia had stopped chipset making completely.

There is nothing more.

donileo
Apr 14, 2010, 06:22 PM
can someone post credible sources to AMD's graphic mobile performance/watt being better then Nvidia?

as far as what I know now integrated graphics wise.. Nvidia is on top.. performance/watt in the Nvidia 320M should be the best ~ remember this is an integrated graphics chip

in the mobile discrete graphics sector i guess the competition opens up a bit more.. im wondering who the clear winner is or if solutions from nvidia and amd are about equal here..

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 06:31 PM
can someone post credible sources to AMD's graphic mobile performance/watt being better then Nvidia?

as far as what I know now integrated graphics wise.. Nvidia is on top.. performance/watt in the Nvidia 320M should be the best ~ remember this is an integrated graphics chip

in the mobile discrete graphics sector i guess the competition opens up a bit more.. im wondering who the clear winner is or if solutions from nvidia and amd are about equal here..

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Graphic-Cards.130.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 06:33 PM
I made the mistake of thinking the 320M was discreet as Ithough nVidia had stopped chipset making completely.

There is nothing more.I'm hope I was able to provide you with enough information. If you would like to know more just ask. I'm sure I've stumbled across it in my travels.

donileo
Apr 14, 2010, 06:38 PM
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Comparison-of-Graphic-Cards.130.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

seems this is mostly at the high end..not across the whole board but yea.. aside from that lets keep the topic going people lol :D
anymore complainers..? alright ill whine a little... nothing is perfect right :)

my only complaint with the macbook pro is lack of USB3.. and bluray..

bluray is not really that important to me but inclusion of USB3 wouldve been nice..

aside from that I think this was a very good update from Apple..

MorphingDragon
Apr 14, 2010, 06:40 PM
seems this is mostly at the high end..not across the whole board but yea.. aside from that lets keep the topic going people lol :D

They seperate the cards into three seperate classes. Look further down the page.

Eidorian
Apr 14, 2010, 06:49 PM
seems this is mostly at the high end..not across the whole board but yea.. aside from that lets keep the topic going people lol :D
anymore complainers..? alright ill whine a little... nothing is perfect right :)

my only complaint with the macbook pro is lack of USB3.. and bluray..

bluray is not really that important to me but inclusion of USB3 wouldve been nice..

aside from that I think this was a very good update from Apple..ATI's 400 shader Mobility HD 5600/5700 line is rather impressive.

mrscrouge
Apr 14, 2010, 07:27 PM
I have my credit card in hand, ready to order. 2 things keeping me:
Besides browsing, documents, email, messengers, tunes, pictures etc, I make music, mainly on logic and I will be getting into Ableton Live. I'll also be getting into making short films but very amateur so ill stick to iMovie , and get Final Cut somewhere along the line. so here are my doubts

1) i5 (2.53) vs 17 (2.66) based on what i do/might get into in the future.

2) High Resolution: I have netflix, and do watch a lot of movies (streaming/dvd), but i dont want to get my computer and realize its way too small and be squinting all the time , advice?

thanks in advance:apple:

manneca
Apr 14, 2010, 08:03 PM
Just got i7 17 inch 8 gb ram. Loving it. Hurray

zedsdead
Apr 14, 2010, 08:19 PM
I have my credit card in hand, ready to order. 2 things keeping me:
Besides browsing, documents, email, messengers, tunes, pictures etc, I make music, mainly on logic and I will be getting into Ableton Live. I'll also be getting into making short films but very amateur so ill stick to iMovie , and get Final Cut somewhere along the line. so here are my doubts

1) i5 (2.53) vs 17 (2.66) based on what i do/might get into in the future.

2) High Resolution: I have netflix, and do watch a lot of movies (streaming/dvd), but i dont want to get my computer and realize its way too small and be squinting all the time , advice?

thanks in advance:apple:

Get the higher resolution it wont be that bad at all. The extra screen real estate will be worth it. I have a 15" and wish it had more screen space. As for the processor, if you plan to do video encoding, go with the i7.

ECUpirate44
Apr 14, 2010, 08:28 PM
I just ordered a 15" i7 mbp!
2.66 Ghz
4gb ram
500 gb hdd at 7200 rpm
high resolution glossy

I can't wait!

dusk007
Apr 14, 2010, 09:31 PM
Look, this argument just doesn't hold water at all. I work with text, coding, etc. all the time. And the argument for a few extra vertical lines of resolution just doesn't work when a WIDER display allows you to have more open at a time.

The more windows I can have displayed side by side is a lot better than being able to pull a window down a little bit more. 16x10 is just an inefficient waste of space.



Yeah. And the funny thing is that since screens went 16x9, computer sales are UP. People want proper widescreen.



Thats true. However, on a 16x10 screen, like the MacBook screen, the image of a 2/35:1 film is as small as it is on a 4x3 TV. Not the case with a proper 16x9 screen.



And guess what? The iMacs are selling better than ever now. Apparently Apple made the right move.



Well, you're in a very very small minority. The rest of the industry has moved to 16x9. They did it virtually overnight. Sales are up. Apple did it on the iMac and sales are up. The only two places you really can't find 16x9 now are on Apple notebooks and Apple "Cinema" displays. But its only a matter of time with them.

I'm sure Apple already has working prototypes.



Again, your argument just doesn't work. I've lost NOTHING in "work" (if working on a computer can even be called "work") by going 16x9 and gained everything when it comes to entertainment. You don't know how many times I've had to explain to people why their widescreen movies look so small on 16x10 displays and how those very same people jump at the opportunity to replace their system with a 16x9 display. And yes these are people who "work" on their computers.

Just like me. 16x10 should have never been introduced to begin with.
......
One can work on 16:9 but if you want maximum screen real estate vs portability than 16:9 is a loose loose. For the same portability you get less screen or for the same screen real estate less portability. At the same portability a movie is displayed at the same size on 16:10 as it is on 16:9. There is no difference.
Why?? Because at least in my opinion, portability is hugely dependent on the width of the notebook. Because I have to fit it into a bag with all my other stuff and my bags are designed to hold A4 shaped stuff like scratchbooks ...
I don't really care about weight. A 16:10 15,4" is not matched in screen real estate by a 15,6" notebook you need to go above 16" and even a 15,6" portability sucks. At the same width a movie is always displayed at the same size.

BTW I hope with OLEDs they finally kill the thick bezels around screens and give us more screen at the same size. OLEDs are almost indestructible as a video of an AMOLED screen and a hammer showed. Thus you don't need to protect them and they are extremely thin too.

jtrenda33
Apr 14, 2010, 11:12 PM
Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?:confused:

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?:confused:

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.:)

how would it not be convenient? all the MBPs are convenient. i personally would go with the 15 inch. you'll get the new processor, and the option of the high-res screen.

correction: i personally would go with the 17 inch, but since you only mentioned the 15, i'd go with that one, but don't take my word for it. i don't even have a macbook pro. i have an imac. i was hoping to get one of these upon the recent refresh, but i am not terribly happy with the update as a whole. im a student too and with the semester winding down, i dont really see the point in getting one right now. i'll wait until its closer to the fall semester, and hopefully they will have refreshed them again, or almost be ready to refresh them again. we'll see.

tigress666
Apr 15, 2010, 12:12 AM
You know what my gripe is? It's with the 13" upgrade. Some person's post about what their parents bought them with the 15" a year ago compared to the 15" now does seem to show the 15"'s at least had a decent upgrade (but for those of us who actually prefer a smaller laptop, that's not a consolation).

I have a 3 year old 13" Macbook core 2 duo 2 GHz. I want another 13" Mac. I don't want the bigger Macs as I like the portability (and hte Macbook Air was tempting but the specs are significantly different between mine and even the current Air that I'll compromise and take the bigger size for better specs). I like the 13", it seems a good compromise (until they come up with a better macbook air) between portability and "power".

My gripe is even if I had the money (well, I do but not the budget as I need to be worrying about other things other than a new computer, I don't really *need* a new computer), there is no incentive for me to upgrade except I want to. But what is offered is not worth 1000 dollars to upgrade to. Yeah, the newer ones have some nice stuff but nothing really worth spending the money for an upgrade. In fact, they have lost some features (I have a seperate mic and audio jack for example and if you want to compare mine to the computer of the same name today, the plain macbook, mine has a firewire which the current macbook does not).

Shoot, even if they had a 3.5GHz Core 2 Duo processor as well as a vastly improved graphics card (not hard and I am thinking the newer macbook pro 13"'s at least have this) I could see that being a decent upgrade to what I have. But they still haven't even gotten to 3.0. Mine's a 2.0 GHz, and it was the cheapest macbook you could buy at the time! 3 years ago! I'm pretty sure the more expensive macbook (not pro) was a 2.4 GHz (which isn't that much slower than what they are offering now). Maybe it was a 2.2. Either way, it really was not that much slower than what the cheapest pro they are offering now.

Maybe I'm spoiled by when I was younger computer technology got updated quicker and maybe it's slowing down, but it seems in 3 years my computer should feel completely outdated and ancient. Instead it seems to be surprisingly still up to date especially considering its age (in fact in one little tiny aspect it's superior! Well two aspects if you compare it to the macbook which it was marketed as at the time). I still am waiting for something worthy of spending 1k on. And if it weren't for the fact I much prefer Mac OSX, I'd check out what PC laptops offered rather than waiting and hoping one day they'll put out a real upgrade. The only thing outdated about it is the fact that Sims 3 actually lists my graphics card as not compatible (which I find amusing). Then again, my graphics card couldn't handle games that came out when my computer was new so is that that surprising (except that for some reason they made a point of mentioning my graphics card as specifically not compatible)?

And to me that seems so wrong.

camoas
Apr 15, 2010, 12:48 AM
See the MacRumors front page for a story. It compares the i7 to the 2.8 GHz Core2Duo, but it's fairly easy to see how much the 3.06 GHz beats the 2.8.

Overall, the i7 beats the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo by around 40-50%. The 3.06 is about 5% faster than the 2.8, so you're still looking at something like 35-40% faster.


I am talking about CPU power, not overall comparison.
And according to the chart, the i7 2.66 Ghz and the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo are almost the same. So I am wondering if the old 3.06 model would have more CPU power...

onlyapple135
Apr 15, 2010, 01:07 AM
I just ordered a 15" i7 mbp!
2.66 Ghz
4gb ram
500 gb hdd at 7200 rpm
high resolution glossy

I can't wait!

Im currently waiting to on a shipment with a macbook pro with exactly those specs!

jhande
Apr 15, 2010, 05:26 AM
I've just given the go ahead on the following specs
15" i7 mbp!
2.66 Ghz
8gb ram
500 gb hdd at 7200 rpm
high resolution anti-glare

I'd really like the 13", but for once I want a bigger screen. I understand the disappointment re the c2d on the 13", but c'mon people, this is not just a decent update, but a good one.

This update is between the mindblowing "wtf did they do, must have" and "meh, just a speed bump".

KnightWRX
Apr 15, 2010, 06:33 AM
You know what my gripe is? It's with the 13" upgrade.

I have a 3 year old 13" Macbook core 2 duo 2 GHz.
In fact, they have lost some features
mine has a firewire which the current macbook does not).

The MBP 13" has a FW800 port. Your old Macbook has half the battery life. It has very very poor GPU performance (using an Intel GPU) compared to even the older 9400m, the 320m blows it out of the water. Aluminium body vs your polycarbonate, LED backlit screen vs your CCFL. Mini Display port capable of much higher resolution output than your mini DVI. Backlit keyboard.

And it still has the line-in port, combined with the out port. Since it has a microphone built in, seems like that doesn't really matter (and USB headsets today are prevalent, compared to 3 years ago when you had dual plug headsets).

CPU GHZ is the last spec you should look at, compared to a 3 year old Macbook, the MBP 13" is a nice upgrade.

For you, it is a very good upgrade. But, if your Macbook does everything you want, don't upgrade. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is just a waste of money. Some people just get an "itch" to upgrade and do, and in the end, all they've done is create some debt for themselves.

Thunderhawks
Apr 15, 2010, 06:54 AM
The MBP 13" has a FW800 port. Your old Macbook has half the battery life. It has very very poor GPU performance (using an Intel GPU) compared to even the older 9400m, the 320m blows it out of the water. Aluminium body vs your polycarbonate, LED backlit screen vs your CCFL. Mini Display port capable of much higher resolution output than your mini DVI. Backlit keyboard.

And it still has the line-in port, combined with the out port. Since it has a microphone built in, seems like that doesn't really matter (and USB headsets today are prevalent, compared to 3 years ago when you had dual plug headsets).

CPU GHZ is the last spec you should look at, compared to a 3 year old Macbook, the MBP 13" is a nice upgrade.

For you, it is a very good upgrade. But, if your Macbook does everything you want, don't upgrade. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is just a waste of money. Some people just get an "itch" to upgrade and do, and in the end, all they've done is create some debt for themselves.

I don't get all the whining and trying to wait out what a manufacturer will do next.

All manufacturers in all fields have to do things their way and make sure the products work.

At one point they have to be done cramming things in and whatever they do the next new thing is showing up on the horizon.

If they would wait for that next thing to ripen, we'd never see a product.

This is how easy it is to buy:

PLAN A
--------
Want a Mac?
Assess what you are really doing with it (honestly)
Check out if the model you pick does what you need.
(Never mind if it's the latest)
BUY FOR THAT NEED!

Get an Apple care plan and in 3 years upgrade to the next technology.

If it doesn't do what you need go to plan B!

PLAN B
--------
Need a computer
Assess what you are really doing with it
Buy for that need, regardless of brand/OS!

Then post on MacRumors that Apple doesn't have this and doesn't do this and should have, would have and they are too slow in updating and we want more for less money and and ..............


Wait that's already being done:-)

xbjllb
Apr 15, 2010, 07:09 AM
It is not how much. It is how you use it.

Mac has always got more out of their machines using less. That's what good engineering is all about.

So THAT'S the absurd rationalization now for paying more for obsolete iCrap that's nowhere near cutting edge, as Apple USED to be?

Good luck with that.

:apple:

Jasonscott71
Apr 15, 2010, 07:26 AM
let the bitching about the lack of Bluray begin!

AND . . . the lack of an eSATA port.:D

xbjllb
Apr 15, 2010, 07:43 AM
With blu-ray already being adopted at twice the rate DVD was for the same time period a year ago, that means that blu-ray is outpacing DVD adoption (when compared to the same point in either products life) even faster now.

Doesn't matter. As long as the "Great and Powerful Jobs" has his minions here and paid whores all over the net telling people to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", there will be no Blu-ray in Macs. And Apple will buy the farm once iKiddies outgrow iCrap and throw it over for cheaper stuff from China. That will definitely do flash and will probably have Blu-ray to boot.

It's happened to every cutting edge company that chased after the lowest common denominator.


From someone who works at Black Box studios, you do realise that blu-ray is just a form of content delivery right? If you have terabytes of content are you really going to sit there and wait until it all gets written to a blu-ray? That would take a week, stop fooling yourself and be honest with people here. We use external SSD's, and thats it. Optical=dead

I don't care where you CLAIM you work. MY video and audio for video customers and MY targets demand Blu-ray, only proofs burned, and replicated for mass distribution. And it's been a standard now for almost three years and will remain so for the foreseeable future. As if I would send out ssd drives to ten thousand companies.

Once again, as you are NOT a content CREATOR and obviously never have been, you don't get it and won't ever get it.


I think you're spot on;). Failure to support blu-ray is a major mistake by Jobs and he knows it. Macbooks Pros are simply not competitive without it. I will probably get one for some development work but I wouldn't bother if it weren't for the iPhone/iPod/iPad.

Cheers,

jahman

Sanity doesn't work around here.

(Big rant about evil Sony DRM truncated)

Frankly, a little less troll-speak and a little more candor would be helpful here.

Frankly, a little less defense of piracy would be even MORE helpful around here. The only people who have anything to complain about at all about DRM are P-I-R-A-T-E-S and people who approve of piracy.

Like Steve Jobs.


In your opinion.

Now, please give us some reason to believe that your opinion is more valid than Jobs' opinion of what the market wants - backed up by Apple's market research teams.

Apple's RESEARCH teams? They go to the nearest elementary school, haul in a bunch of third grade males who don't even know what Blu-ray is (and have never seen a 65" plamsa in their lives) but spend four hours a day pirating first run movies and porn off torrents, and get them to ooh and ahh over consumerist crap.

That's the full extent of Apple's painfully obvious market research.

And that's obviously the full extent of the maturity of Apple's CEO.


It's hilarious how many people get up in arms about blu-ray. As usual, it's all about SJ, never anything rational like..

(List truncated)

Drones to the next Big Thing, and the other clueless guys (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9662306&postcount=1102) who think a peripherial in their laptop is going to disable their ability to develop media on their MBP might whine, but I'm happy that my new laptop hasn't wasted power, internal volume, or budget on something that's really only noticable in quality home theater setups..

I just love it how you "experts" who never created anything in your lives keep telling content creators what THEY need, don't need, and needed three years ago.

I also love the rationalization that Apple computers don't need to be cutting edge anymore because of all the hype around the latest iCrap iToy. I think that's the most priceless rationalization of all.


Horsefeathers. Blah blah blah blah

The day I (or anyone else, for that matter) seriously listens to an "expert" who chooses bad breath as a nickname (as highly accurate and appropriate as it is for the amount of Apple toxic gas being spewed) will be the day Obama pulls all the troops out of the Mideast.

I.E, NE-VER.

:apple:

ECUpirate44
Apr 15, 2010, 09:06 AM
Im currently waiting to on a shipment with a macbook pro with exactly those specs!

I ordered mine last night. Has yours shipped yet? I am flying out on wendesday. I hope it arrives before then :rolleyes:

AtariMac
Apr 15, 2010, 09:15 AM
This thread is like watching old women talk about the weather. If you're unhappy with the update don't buy it. If you are happy then buy it.

The bickering is lovely.

tigress666
Apr 15, 2010, 09:51 AM
The MBP 13" has a FW800 port. Your old Macbook has half the battery life. It has very very poor GPU performance (using an Intel GPU) compared to even the older 9400m, the 320m blows it out of the water. Aluminium body vs your polycarbonate, LED backlit screen vs your CCFL. Mini Display port capable of much higher resolution output than your mini DVI. Backlit keyboard.


The battery life of my Mac hasn't really bothered me. Yeah, it would be nice to have a little better, but only when I take it on a plane and even then, it's mostly adequate (Honestly, I'm pretty happy with my battery life. More is never bad of course but it's never had me thinking I can't believe the crappy battery life out of it. And it's still on the same 3 year old battery and it's still going strong). Oh, and yeah, I can buy a spare battery and change it when mine dies ;). So yeah, the newer ones need a super good battery since you can't do that :P.

It's certainly not a reason to pay 1k more for a laptop. Yes, the body is nicer (I am very disappointed with the quality of mine, every single one I've seen of mine has cracks at the palm rest!), once again, not worth an upgrade to me (I would like to see the computer be significantly faster for one). But, I am curious (not really that up on hardware terminalogy), what the GPU does for me. My screen is also fine and not a reason I'd upgrade (especially since I just use my monitor and only use the screen when I want my computer to be portable. I don't really care it has a great screen, I like my monitor).

And the backlit keyboard? Nice luxury but definitely not a reason to upgrade. It's got a bunch of small things I see that I like but nothing I'd say is a reason to upgrade (Well be nice to be able to put more than 2 gigs of RAM in it). Maybe it's cause for me, 1k is a *lot* of money. And small luxuries are really no reason to upgrade. Maybe if I made more money and 1k was not that big of a investment for me it would be worth it.

I guess I'm just waiting for them to come out with a new enough technology that it will be like my current computer, up to date and able to run the new OS's for a while (mine is near the last generation that cannot run the newest OS. Mine is just up to date enough to be able to do so and so far I don't see that it's going out of date).

Especially this late in the game. at this point the more I think about it, the more I worry if I bought the current laptop that next year they'll come up with the revolutionary new chip that they'll stop supporting the Core 2 Duo's soon. Which is my worry about buying a laptop with a chip that pretty much is three year old technology. It's getting old and in general it seems there is a point where they do something revolutionary enough that if you buy now the laptop will become out of date way quickly (vs. mine that has stayed relevant for quite a while. Or even my G4 I still have which I believe may be the oldest Mac that can still run at least the first gen or two of OSX).

CPU GHZ is the last spec you should look at, compared to a 3 year old Macbook, the MBP 13" is a nice upgrade.

And I think I've outlined why using the same CPU, even with my statement saying if it was much faster, this long is a reason to wait more to see if they are going to put something pretty new in it.

For you, it is a very good upgrade. But, if your Macbook does everything you want, don't upgrade. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is just a waste of money. Some people just get an "itch" to upgrade and do, and in the end, all they've done is create some debt for themselves.

Well, I personally woudln't mind a faster computer. But I think I also want to make sure I'm not buying a computer that is going to get outdated fast for the amount of money I'm spending. I'm not convinced that using the same chip technology as my three year old computer is a good buy if I want it to last long. Yeah, I do have the itch to upgrade but I think I'll try to hold out and just fix up current computer (crappiest quality mac I've had yet, well maybe the Performa 6100 might compete with that).

Now, my current question is, is it worth it for right now to give my computer an extra gig of ram (it only has one gig and it can only hold two gigs apparently)? I'm about to repair the fan and replace the keyboard/trackpad/top-case so wondering if adding RAM would be worth it (it would push my expenditure on current computer from ~40 dollars to ~70 or so dollars). I think that it would be smart of me to at least wait a year (or less if something really new comes out before that). You're right, I don't *need* a new computer, I just want one (I've been wanting one for about a year, but a combination of budget + the 13" I've seen Apple offer wouldn't be worth it even if I had a better budget have stopped me). I have to admit, it is a combo of some of the smaller stuff (trackpad, aluminum body, black border around screen) I say isn't worth an upgrade that does have me jealous. But for 1k and my budget, the practical side of me says to wait for the actual performance stuff to be worth it.

(Though I have to admit to ulterior motives of trying to find an excuse I should upgrade that will shut up my practical side ;)).

Hal Itosis
Apr 15, 2010, 09:56 AM
Doesn't matter. As long as the "Great and Powerful Jobs" has his minions here and paid whores all over the net telling people to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", there will be no Blu-ray in Macs. And Apple will buy the farm once iKiddies outgrow iCrap and throw it over for cheaper stuff from China. That will definitely do flash and will probably have Blu-ray to boot.

It's happened to every cutting edge company that chased after the lowest common denominator.




I don't care where you CLAIM you work. MY video and audio for video customers and MY targets demand Blu-ray, only proofs burned, and replicated for mass distribution. And it's been a standard now for almost three years and will remain so for the foreseeable future. As if I would send out ssd drives to ten thousand companies.

Once again, as you are NOT a content CREATOR and obviously never have been, you don't get it and won't ever get it.




Sanity doesn't work around here.



Frankly, a little less defense of piracy would be even MORE helpful around here. The only people who have anything to complain about at all about DRM are P-I-R-A-T-E-S and people who approve of piracy.

Like Steve Jobs.




Apple's RESEARCH teams? They go to the nearest elementary school, haul in a bunch of third grade males who don't even know what Blu-ray is (and have never seen a 65" plamsa in their lives) but spend four hours a day pirating first run movies and porn off torrents, and get them to ooh and ahh over consumerist crap.

That's the full extent of Apple's painfully obvious market research.

And that's obviously the full extent of the maturity of Apple's CEO.




I just love it how you "experts" who never created anything in your lives keep telling content creators what THEY need, don't need, and needed three years ago.

I also love the rationalization that Apple computers don't need to be cutting edge anymore because of all the hype around the latest iCrap iToy. I think that's the most priceless rationalization of all.




The day I (or anyone else, for that matter) seriously listens to an "expert" who chooses bad breath as a nickname (as highly accurate and appropriate as it is for the amount of Apple toxic gas being spewed) will be the day Obama pulls all the troops out of the Mideast.

I.E, NE-VER.

:apple:
Go ahead: use a PeeCee, watch FauxNews... and vote Republican. No one's stopping you, it's a free country. The weird part is: Apple only has roughly a 10% marketshare... yet every PeeCee looney on the Intarwebz wants to hang out *here* to vent their (misguided) anger.

Why? :confused: Who's forcing you to come here anyway? :confused:
Don't you have anything better to do (in your 87% share of the universe)?

Rocketman
Apr 15, 2010, 09:57 AM
I don't know if it is true or not but . . .


Order these compelling
Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad products today!


<http://www.drbott.net/search/db.php?pmc=rn100415&code=9180-MDHK&rn=rn100415>
<http://www.drbott.net/search/db.php?pmc=rn100415&code=9180-MDHK&rn=rn100415>Mini DisplayPort to HDMI Adapter II, Black - Dr. Bott
Supports video AND audio on Apple's newly released Macbook Pro laptops.

Apple's newly released MacBook Pro models now support audio output via their mini DisplayPort. With this adapter, a single HDMI cable can transmit both audio and video to your HDMI display.

Availability:* *Good*******Retail: $29.00

Interesting claim anyway.

Rocketman

cmaier
Apr 15, 2010, 09:58 AM
Frankly, a little less defense of piracy would be even MORE helpful around here. The only people who have anything to complain about at all about DRM are P-I-R-A-T-E-S and people who approve of piracy.


Or anyone who's had their computer trashed by a rootkit installed for the sake of DRM. Or anyone who's had a DRM server shut down and been unable to access content they paid for. Or anyone who is unable to play a game they bought because they don't have a consistent internet connection. Or anyone who is unable to make legitimate backup copies of their media since all optical media is prone to scratching and degrades over time. Or anyone who is unable to exercise their fair use rights to excerpt, parody, make commentary on, or use for educational purposes their media because of DRM. Or anyone who is forced to sit through endless pre-movie commercials because they can't make a movie-only copy and the studios don't let you skip past them. Or anyone who's had to wait 3 minutes for their player to start playing the movie because the DRM takes so long to check. Or anyone who wants to watch a bluray on a linux system.

Meanwhile the pirates aren't bothered at all, since makem4v and other tools strip the drm easily - all DRM does is make legitimate users suffer.

vijay007
Apr 15, 2010, 09:58 AM
Get the higher resolution it wont be that bad at all. The extra screen real estate will be worth it. I have a 15" and wish it had more screen space. As for the processor, if you plan to do video encoding, go with the i7.

I have a lot of videos which are not of very high resolution. Most of them are not even 720p.

Would the 1680 by 1050 display resolution make them appear bad compared to the 1440 by 900 display?

zedsdead
Apr 15, 2010, 10:11 AM
I have a lot of videos which are not of very high resolution. Most of them are not even 720p.

Would the 1680 by 1050 display resolution make them appear bad compared to the 1440 by 900 display?

Yes they will look more grainy, but they shouldn't look awful?

atomwork
Apr 15, 2010, 10:25 AM
A: The MacBook Pro 13"s are using a discreet 320M. The 9400M blurb is meaningless as it doesnt have switching graphics. They could be using an Intel chipset for all we know.

B: The Ati Mobility series uses less power for more perfromance than nVidia M series.

C: ATi and Intel graphics are in far more laptops than nVidia right now.

Hi, I am saying this as a 20+ year apple fan. If you put pro on the label, please give me the latest tech for my design that's justifying the PRO name. Intel has the i7 Extreme out. Would be nice to have quad or six core option available to build.

I really would love to have a laptop that's somewhere the office Mac Pro 8-core. Makes working on the road so much more productive. Especially in rendering out jobs (3D or AE)

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

xbjllb
Apr 15, 2010, 10:31 AM
Why? :confused: Who's forcing you to come here anyway? :confused:
Don't you have anything better to do (in your 87% share of the universe)?

I don't want Apple to fail because of Jobs' and your myopia. I have quite an investment in Apple over the years I detest seeing Jobs torpedo for the lowest common quick buck.

I want Apple to concentrate on and produce cutting edge workstations again instead of iCrap for iKiddies.

I also represent an entire iceberg of Apple pro users, of which I am only the visible top 1%.

And I quite stupidly hold out hope that Apple will "retire" Jobs and turn around before it becomes Amiga.

So sue me.

:apple:

atomwork
Apr 15, 2010, 10:43 AM
I don't want Apple to fail because of Jobs' and your myopia. I have quite an investment in Apple over the years I detest seeing Jobs torpedo for the lowest common quick buck.

I want Apple to concentrate on and produce cutting edge workstations again instead of iCrap for iKiddies.

I also represent an entire iceberg of Apple pro users, of which I am only the visible top 1%.

And I quite stupidly hold out hope that Apple will "retire" Jobs and turn around before it becomes Amiga.

So sue me.

:apple:

Great said. It's a generic laptop for the average consumer. Nothing pro about that one anymore.

Back in the days Steve help public appearances for the pro community to showcase how bad ass it was. Now it's iPad & iPhone all day.

flyingscott
Apr 15, 2010, 11:13 AM
Great said. It's a generic laptop for the average consumer. Nothing pro about that one anymore.

Back in the days Steve help public appearances for the pro community to showcase how bad ass it was. Now it's iPad & iPhone all day.

We are and always will be the 1%'ers... iPhone is a cash cow, iPad may follow... pro gear isn't even in the same ballpark.

Plus, most of us think we need way more than we actually do... its true ;)

cmaier
Apr 15, 2010, 11:13 AM
I also represent an entire iceberg of Apple pro users, of which I am only the visible top 1%.


Exactly right. That means there are only 99 people who agree with you.

VoR
Apr 15, 2010, 11:25 AM
Exactly right. That means there are only 99 people who agree with you.

And the other 99% of customers that don't agree with him (or more likely don't care/know enough/anything) might be good for apple as a company...doesn't do much good for the pro/enthusiast/etc though.
I want to buy decent computers for decent prices. I'm not so happy about paying through the nose for what I feel is little more than an aesthetics premium - just because my neighbours grandmother likes the looks and the adverts and every kid in the country saw (and bought) an iphone after listening to a bbc radio presenter.

atomwork
Apr 15, 2010, 11:26 AM
Plus, most of us think we need way more than we actually do... its true ;)


So true ;) Why not keep that core duo a few more years. I like watching the 2 Cinema 4d render bars on the MBP vs the 16 on the MacPro :)

cmaier
Apr 15, 2010, 11:30 AM
And the other 99% of customers that don't agree with him (or more likely don't care/know enough/anything) might be good for apple as a company...doesn't do much good for the pro/enthusiast/etc though.
I want to buy decent computers for decent prices. I'm not so happy about paying through the nose for what I feel is little more than an aesthetics premium - just because my neighbours grandmother likes the looks and the adverts and every kid in the country saw (and bought) an iphone after listening to a bbc radio presenter.

Actually, I have no opinion (other than to note that I seem to be more productive at work with my 2007 Santa Rosa MBP 17" than anyone else is with their fancy new Dells that cost a lot less). But I like to pick on people for bad math :)

praetorx
Apr 15, 2010, 12:09 PM
Mine hasn't shipped yet (ordered it on the launch date)... how about yours?

Hal Itosis
Apr 15, 2010, 12:10 PM
Your most recent installment...
I don't want Apple to fail because of Jobs' and your myopia. I have quite an investment in Apple over the years I detest seeing Jobs torpedo for the lowest common quick buck.

And a previous pronouncement...
This insane suicidal aversion to providing true cutting-edge workstations will kill Apple.

And good riddance.

Yes, yes... quite an emotional range there. The only consistency is the degree of petulance.


I want Apple to concentrate on and produce cutting edge workstations again instead of iCrap for iKiddies.
You sound more like a Blu-ray salesman to me.

So... you were surprised that Blu-ray was not included in this week's MBP update? :eek:
Where do you live... under a bridge? :cool:

[Your other anti-Steve Jobs (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9662424&postcount=702) posts border on the psychotic... the precise agenda of which are still illusive.]

vijay007
Apr 15, 2010, 12:13 PM
Does anyone know if Apple store or Bestbuy or any other store would be having the 1680 by 1050 display resolution 15" model in display?

I am caught up between the 1680 by 1050 and 1440 by 900 resolutions. This is the only thing which is holding me from ordering a new 15" :(

gnasher729
Apr 15, 2010, 12:17 PM
Does anyone know if Apple store or Bestbuy or any other store would be having the 1680 by 1050 display resolution 15" model in display?

I am caught up between the 1680 by 1050 and 1440 by 900 resolutions. This is the only thing which is holding me from ordering a new 15" :(

The rule is: 20 years old, excellent eyesight -> 1680x1050. 50 years old, needs reading glasses -> 1440x900. In between -> have a look in the shop.

I think you asked about displaying movies: For movies, and for photos, the higher the resolution of the Mac screen, the better the quality.

Don't you guys realize putting a quad core in a MBP would give us the same issues the Envy 15 has? Too much heat and horrible battery life.

If you think about it... Apple doesn't put the quad cores into the 21.5 inch iMac, because the 27 inch iMac is much bigger and it is much easier to get rid of the heat that the quad core produces. If quad core in a 21.5 inch iMac is a bad idea, then quad core in a MacBook is worse.

Wheelie4
Apr 15, 2010, 12:31 PM
Mine hasn't shipped yet (ordered it on the launch date)... how about yours?

My late 2007 15" Mbp died 3rd of last month so I ordered the entry level 15" i5 tuesday through Amazon (chose the FREE shipping option). Shipped yesterday and on scheduled to be delivered by UPS tomorrow. USP even called an hour ago informing me of the delivery tomorrow. :D

For those complaining about the price, my late 2007 model entry level 15" mbp (non configured) sold by Apple was $1999 in Feb 2008. I upgraded to it from an early 2007 3 times defective Blackbook so lucky me they sent me the mid level 15" at the entry level cost for my hassles. Doubled the Ram myself. Hence the specs in my signature. :)

KPATT18
Apr 15, 2010, 12:54 PM
Has anyone who ordered a MBP that was a Custom order (added the hi-res screen for example) had their order shipped yet. I ordered mine Tuesday night but it still shows as "Not Yet Shipped".

djrobsd
Apr 15, 2010, 12:56 PM
My late 2007 15" Mbp died 3rd of last month so I ordered the entry level 15" i5 tuesday through Amazon (chose the FREE shipping option). Shipped yesterday and on scheduled to be delivered by UPS tomorrow. USP even called an hour ago informing me of the delivery tomorrow. :D

For those complaining about the price, my late 2007 model entry level 15" mbp (non configured) sold by Apple was $1999 in Feb 2008. I upgraded to it from an early 2007 3 times defective Blackbook so lucky me they sent me the mid level 15" at the entry level cost for my hassles. Doubled the Ram myself. Hence the specs in my signature. :)

You're joking right? Your blackbook was replaced 3 times finally to a Macbook Pro, and now that is dead and you're actually going to drop another $2000 on an Apple product? Wow, you must really be loyal.

Wheelie4
Apr 15, 2010, 01:06 PM
You're joking right? Your blackbook was replaced 3 times finally to a Macbook Pro, and now that is dead and you're actually going to drop another $2000 on an Apple product? Wow, you must really be loyal.

Blackbook was repaired 2 times for same problem. 3rd time they decided to replace it so I chose to pay the difference and get the entry level 15", they sent me the mid level. Loyal? Hmmm maybe. Prefer OS X over Windows? YES, without a doubt. $1794 btw. I'll probably repair the previous one later as a backup so I never have to use this 8 yr old WinXP Dell :mad: as a backup again. ;) :apple:

praetorx
Apr 15, 2010, 01:09 PM
Has anyone who ordered a MBP that was a Custom order (added the hi-res screen for example) had their order shipped yet. I ordered mine Tuesday night but it still shows as "Not Yet Shipped".

Same here, I ordered mine Tuesday morning, HD display and 7200RPM HDD. Not yet shipped :mad:

tigress666
Apr 15, 2010, 01:11 PM
You're joking right? Your blackbook was replaced 3 times finally to a Macbook Pro, and now that is dead and you're actually going to drop another $2000 on an Apple product? Wow, you must really be loyal.

Well there is the issue that if you really like the OSX you're kinda stuck (I think some one mentioned installing OSX on a PC but how hard is that to do for your average user?).

I have to admit, quality wise I'm not impressed with my macbook which interesting enough is pretty much the same design as the guy's macbook you are talking about (for one every single macbook of my style I've seen has the palm rest plastic cracked. My friend had his keyboard replaced and the new top case cracked once again in the same place. Seems pretty much a defect when it happens every single time). I mean the hard drive died after a year (I know, you say hard drives can be finicky, but even for a hard drive I feel a year is a pretty short time). The fan is going out on it now, the mouse button is all weird on mine. I had to glue back together the plug that slides into the power converter (or pay 70 bux for a new power converter since they don't sell the plug seperately). I've never had so many things break within 3 years on any previous mac (The only other time I have had a Mac have something break in less than *five* years was the hard drive on my Performa and that at least took three years. The Performa had seperate issues, hardware bugs they fixed in the very next model).

And it's the first time I have felt that my computer needs a complete wipe and re-install when I'm not running Windows (that's more of a software thing I suppose or maybe a Mac finally got popular enough that there is more crap that one can "accidentally" download and lag up their computer).

Shoot, my G4 still has yet to have any issues and it's something like 10 years old and mostly used as a tabletop these days (I was using it when the hard drive died on this macbook and shocked it still ran fine). And the keyboard from the G4 still works great (it's been my main keyboard since I got the G4, even using it on the PC and with my macbook when I have it plugged into my monitor, which is most of the time). And I am not nice on my keyboards (something I've always said, Mac makes quite durable keyboards).

I really hope the Macbook Pros are better made than this thing was. Though I have to admit I like the ergonomics of this computer. It was well thought out (The magnetic "latch", the magnetic plug, how thin it is, shape). I just wish it was a little longer lasting.

eccentricglow
Apr 15, 2010, 01:12 PM
I ordered mine Tuesday night and it still hasn't shipped yet either.

My first mac!! I can't wait.

Did you pay for expedited shipping?

grahamwright1
Apr 15, 2010, 01:21 PM
I ordered mine Tuesday night and it still hasn't shipped yet either.

My first mac!! I can't wait.

Did you pay for expedited shipping?

$18 to expedite the shipping, but my 2.66 17', 8Gb, 7200rpm HD, and anti-glare is still "Prepared for Shipment" - a little frustrating as I hoped the extra $18 might have had a speedup on the process :-)

praetorx
Apr 15, 2010, 01:22 PM
I did but that's only going to affect transit time not build time. I honestly don't expect it to be shipped until early next week.

Jasoco
Apr 15, 2010, 01:24 PM
I ordered my 13" from the MacOutfitters yesterday. They're waiting for their first shipment. Supposedly 2-3 days. I really hope it's sooner rather than later.

lilo777
Apr 15, 2010, 01:33 PM
So... you were surprised that Blu-ray was not included in this week's MBP update? :eek:
Where do you live... under a bridge? :cool:

[Your other anti-Steve Jobs (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9662424&postcount=702) posts border on the psychotic... the precise agenda of which are still illusive.]

Of course he was surprised. Why would not he be? At the time when every computer manufacturer offers BluRay, obviously one should expect Apple to offer it too. Then of course we are not sure anymore if we should even consider Apple to be a computer manufacturer.

KPATT18
Apr 15, 2010, 01:33 PM
I ordered mine Tuesday night and it still hasn't shipped yet either.

My first mac!! I can't wait.

Did you pay for expedited shipping?

Yes. The best they had to Alaska was 2-3 day for $18.

KPATT18
Apr 15, 2010, 01:34 PM
$18 to expedite the shipping, but my 2.66 17', 8Gb, 7200rpm HD, and anti-glare is still "Prepared for Shipment" - a little frustrating as I hoped the extra $18 might have had a speedup on the process :-)

How long has it sat at "Prepared for Shipment"?

polaris20
Apr 15, 2010, 02:07 PM
I'm glad Apple didn't move to a 16:9 screen. For everything other than movies, 16:9 sucks. Virtual machines, documents, RDP, VNC, video editing, audio editing, photo editing, etc.

Unless the screen has a high vertical resolution IN ADDITION to the high horizontal res, I do not want to go to 16:9. On the iMac I guess it's fine since the horizontal res is 1080 (or higher), but I'd still prefer 1920x1200 (or the 27" equivalent).

Eric S.
Apr 15, 2010, 02:40 PM
If you think about it... Apple doesn't put the quad cores into the 21.5 inch iMac, because the 27 inch iMac is much bigger and it is much easier to get rid of the heat that the quad core produces. If quad core in a 21.5 inch iMac is a bad idea, then quad core in a MacBook is worse.

Of course those are Lynnfield desktop cpus, but your point is still correct. A Clarksfield in an MBP would produce a lot of heat for the thin case, as well as drain the battery much more rapidly.

UltraLobster
Apr 15, 2010, 02:52 PM
Just bought the 13" 2.4GHz macbook pro. I was up in the air between this and the 15" with highres antigloss. Price difference was $1300 compared to $2150. And I don't really need the power just wanted to start learning to use Mac OSX. :) If anything I'm more angry they didn't up the res and put anti-glare on the 13" over them adding a new processor.

Also just a tip for anyone getting the 15" spend the 100$ and get higher resolution. It's worth it no matter what you think. The higher the resolution the better.


Also no one caught about 10 pages back. One guy arguring for 16:9 saying 1920x1200 is better resolution than 16:10's 1920x1080. Except he mixed up the resolution because 1920/16*9 = 1200 which is the greater of the two resolutions!

vipergts2207
Apr 15, 2010, 03:25 PM
Just bought the 13" 2.4GHz macbook pro. I was up in the air between this and the 15" with highres antigloss. Price difference was $1300 compared to $2150. And I don't really need the power just wanted to start learning to use Mac OSX. :) If anything I'm more angry they didn't up the res and put anti-glare on the 13" over them adding a new processor.

Also just a tip for anyone getting the 15" spend the 100$ and get higher resolution. It's worth it no matter what you think. The higher the resolution the better.


Also no one caught about 10 pages back. One guy arguring for 16:9 saying 1920x1200 is better resolution than 16:10's 1920x1080. Except he mixed up the resolution because 1920/16*9 = 1200 which is the greater of the two resolutions!

You might want to check your math again. You're also mixing your resolutions and aspect ratios up. 1920x1080=16:9 and 1920x1200=16:10.

Mrmyeah
Apr 15, 2010, 04:55 PM
Has anyone who ordered a MBP that was a Custom order (added the hi-res screen for example) had their order shipped yet. I ordered mine Tuesday night but it still shows as "Not Yet Shipped".

Ordered mine on Tuesday as well (15" 2.66 i7/500GB@5400/HI RES Glossy) - still hasn't shipped. The wait continues.....

KPATT18
Apr 15, 2010, 05:53 PM
Ordered mine on Tuesday as well (15" 2.66 i7/500GB@5400/HI RES Glossy) - still hasn't shipped. The wait continues.....

Ya know, you would think that they would have had some of these ready. Has anyone had their's shipped???????

Smith2542
Apr 15, 2010, 06:28 PM
hey- someone said that intel may be discontinuing the c2d in june- is that true? does anyone have links or info? Because if so, that would mean that the c2d 13" wouldn't last long.

Digital Skunk
Apr 15, 2010, 06:29 PM
Wonderful!

So now we are going to complain about how they NEW Macbook Pros haven't shipped yet.

Hey, at least we know that they are coming. :D

MacNut
Apr 15, 2010, 06:36 PM
hey- someone said that intel may be discontinuing the c2d in june- is that true? does anyone have links or info? Because if so, that would mean that the c2d 13" wouldn't last long.Why would it matter, the chips would still work.

KPATT18
Apr 15, 2010, 06:37 PM
Wonderful!

So now we are going to complain about how they NEW Macbook Pros haven't shipped yet.

Hey, at least we know that they are coming. :D

I'm not complaining yet. Just wondering in anticipation.

Smith2542
Apr 15, 2010, 06:37 PM
Why would it matter, the chips would still work.

yes but the supply wouldn't last forever.

Digital Skunk
Apr 15, 2010, 06:53 PM
I'm not complaining yet. Just wondering in anticipation.

Don't worry, I am just messing with ya. I'd be bitting my nails too.