Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases 17'' MacBook Pro
- Thread starter Demon Hunter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
no macbook? of course not....
why would they introduce a macbook at NAB? NAB tends to have higher end computer users as it caters to the broadcasting community. as in fcp users. as in professional editors et al. nobody in the broadcasting world cuts on an ibook (macbook).
i would assume that apple picks it's time and place to announce certain products. to unviel the macbook here would be like them introducing a new ipod at the NAB. why?
fp
why would they introduce a macbook at NAB? NAB tends to have higher end computer users as it caters to the broadcasting community. as in fcp users. as in professional editors et al. nobody in the broadcasting world cuts on an ibook (macbook).
i would assume that apple picks it's time and place to announce certain products. to unviel the macbook here would be like them introducing a new ipod at the NAB. why?
fp
DKZ said:
i don't think so. 1" thick. 6.8 pounds. clearly a laptop
that dell someone described is probably twice as heavy, and at least twice as thick.
BRLawyer said:
I think this question could take up its own thread on a slow news day!
My quick guesses:
1. Trolls who vote negative on all pro-Apple news
2. Those who are unhappy because they wanted a MacBook (iBook) to be released today instead of a MBP.
3. Unhappy people in general.
Multimedia said:Which HD did you go with MovieCutter?
The Faster Smaller 100GB Battery Eater or the Slower Bigger 120GB Battery Conserver?
I think bigger slower battery conserver is my choice. I can remember when 5400 was the faster speed. I'm thinking 5400 is fast enough. What do you think? Anyone please.
If you are not working with video (and therefore heavy datafiles to read and write) on an everyday basis I think the 5400 is enough.
But even if, most people will have an external disk connected (on FW 800
to do this task.I just ordered a 7200 though, but I am doing Video/Rendering and I think it will just be a little snappier....
So there is a DL superdrive that fits in a 1" thin case.
Why Apple, why!!!?? I want an 8x superdrive in my 15"MBP!!!!
Why Apple, why!!!?? I want an 8x superdrive in my 15"MBP!!!!
KREX725 said:I think this question could take up its own thread on a slow news day!
My quick guesses:
1. Trolls who vote negative on all pro-Apple news
2. Those who are unhappy because they wanted a MacBook (iBook) to be released today instead of a MBP.
3. Unhappy people in general.
Well I for one voted negative because of Apples European prices. As I posted before its €2929 or $3614, almost a $1000 dearer here. I could see the justification in a €200 to €400 price increase (because of higher taxes) but close to $1000 is just greed.
nicksoper said:
It's actually $231 more. We pay have to pay VAT remember
Don't ask why it's still $231 more though, *cough* Rip-off Britain *cough cough*BRLawyer said:
Not entirely true. There are pc laptops available with better GPU (even 512 vram) and higher screen resolution. There are also laptops that go up to 4 gigs of ram (not sure if that's four slots or 2G chips). But they're generally more expensive than this one. Still a great laptop at a good price point though.
BGil said:
That dell is still lagging on a number of specs, you'd need to upgrade a few things to make it comparable. And the acer you link to is a 15, not a 17.
Cerebrum, I don't get your post at all. You complain that macs with intel processors are "crappy"...yet you love your PC and PC laptops...yet you loved the dog slow Gx chips (even though you admit they are much slower than the intel ones)?
Anyone Else Here Think 120GB Is Just Large Enough For The System and Applications?
BTW Seagate is about to release a 3.5" 750GB HD.
I'm definitely working with video all the time. The issue for me is the trade off in battery life vs. missing the extra 20GB once all the applications and all their associated support files are loaded. I mean I could see easily using almost all 120 GB just for the system and applications. Couldn't you? I was really hoping for the new 160 GB Seagate inside.lietsche said:If you are not working with video (and therefore heavy datafiles to read and write) on an everyday basis I think the 5400 is enough.
But even if, most people will have an external disk connected (on FW 800
I just ordered a 7200 though, but I am doing Video/Rendering and I think it will just be a little snappier....
BTW Seagate is about to release a 3.5" 750GB HD.
Brize said:
But the 17" model is out now, not months ago.
Dual-layer drives were not available that would fit at the time. There was never any doubt that they would BECOME available, of course. Now they have.
No conspiracy here
Newer/faster optical drive versions have always gotten thinner with the passage of time.(Or else the drive in the 15" actually needs to be thinner than the 17" needs--because the overall internal volume for ALL components is much smaller than the 17", necessitating components under/over the 15" drive. A little surgery would test whether that 15"s drive is thinner than the new 17"s drive, but I doubt it. I don't think it's thicker either, though.)
The difference between "is" vs. "was"?Kingsly said:
joeboy_45101 said:
If $1799 is a reasonable cost for this machine, find me a Dell or HP with the same specs for that price. I've looked at the Dell website and didn't find anything even close to that number.
I think you mean "Why is the computer industry not doing anything to make their high end laptops more affordable?"
MacSA said:
Which is why the biggest recent jump in AAPL came when they announced Boot Camp? Nice try, thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
chabig said:
Which competition is that? Plenty of laptops have DL 8x DVD writers, on the dell site it's a $70 upgrade for most machines.
Does anyone happen to have the old 17" specs on hand? The new resolution is 1680x1050. What was the old resolution? I assume that, as on the 15", some space was lost for the iSight? That really pisses me off. It's a very inelegant, inefficient way to add the camera, which many of us will rarely if ever use anway. But everybody can use more screen space.
My 17" has 1440x900, so it's still a big improvement there, but really the physical size is more important, and that's reduced. The question is, how big is a full page of text when you make it fit onscreen -- now it's smaller.
That really pisses me off. It's a very inelegant, inefficient way to add the camera, which many of us will rarely if ever use anway. But everybody can use more screen space.My 17" has 1440x900, so it's still a big improvement there, but really the physical size is more important, and that's reduced. The question is, how big is a full page of text when you make it fit onscreen -- now it's smaller.
Someone tell me why the 15" macbook pro with a 120g hard drive and the faster processor is MORE EXPENSIVE than the 17" with the same specs plus the extra ports and DL?
bob_hearn said:Does anyone happen to have the old 17" specs on hand? The new resolution is 1680x1050. What was the old resolution? I assume that, as on the 15", some space was lost for the iSight?
My 17" has 1440x900, so it's still a big improvement there, but really the physical size is more important, and that's reduced. The question is, how big is a full page of text when you make it fit onscreen -- now it's smaller.
On my iMac with the same resolution, on Pages I can view two pages both at 99% (without the Inspector bar because I use all the shortcuts).
I am so happy about this!
I think the prices are lower than expected because of the throngs of people saying 'it should come with wheels' etc etc. I think to intice more people to the 'flagship' model, they had to lower the price and add the fw800 + usb. Which really don't cost that much more, but to consumers (pro and non) for the extra screen space and DL dvd, it seems like a bargain. Even tho, they're still making money on it.
I think the prices are lower than expected because of the throngs of people saying 'it should come with wheels' etc etc. I think to intice more people to the 'flagship' model, they had to lower the price and add the fw800 + usb. Which really don't cost that much more, but to consumers (pro and non) for the extra screen space and DL dvd, it seems like a bargain. Even tho, they're still making money on it.
This makes me a little upset... I have FW800 drives, but would never buy a 17" laptop. Put FW800 on a 15" (or even better a 13" *dreaming*) and then I'll upgrade in a second. 17" is a desktop replacement. 15" and smaller are actual laptops.
Kingsly said:
Because in the 15 the superdrive is under the trackpad, which doesn't fit. On the 17 they can put it off to the side and take up the whole thickness of the computer.
eVolcre said:
If it was defective, you could always try telling them to just take it back instead for a refund. (or the replacement model might be defective too) Worth a try.
Multimedia said:I mean I could see easily using almost all 120 GB just for the system and applications. Couldn't you? I was really hoping for the new 160 GB Seagate inside.
Nope, I can't imagine it!
What all are you installing??I have a 40 GB (37 formatted) drive with 16 GB free! I know I'm not a power user, but what apps would fill 120 GB?