Apple Releases 17'' MacBook Pro

[Multimedia]

Faster Smaller 100GB Battery Eater or Slower Bigger 120GB Battery Conserver?

I was wondering if there is any noticable difference between the 5400 RPM HD and the 72-- RPM HD. Would you really notice the difference or wouldn't you at all. I was just wondering since I am thinking of buying one. thanx in advance.

What you are asking is should I buy the Faster Smaller 100GB Battery Eater or Slower Bigger 120GB Battery Conserver? I just had a private exchange with MovieCutter about this and he says the 5400rpm 120 is what he ordered because you won't feel the difference and you will miss that extra 20GB of space. I concurr. You can so easily fill up 120GB - net 110 - in nothing flat. And remeber you will get longer battery life with the bigger slower drive too.

 

[bob_hearn]

Extreme resolutions like that on 17" Laptops is not really needed. My bro has 1680x1050 on his 15.4" Dell and I think it is too small for that size screen. On 17" it is good. Apple should have at least made it an option so that people that want it can order it.

The problem is that the OS is not yet fully resolution-independent. Windows users expect their stuff to look like crap. Apple want the UI to look right. This should be improved in Leopard -- right?

 

[nagromme]

The only thing that's truly new is intel inside.

And having TWO processors instead of one

And a much faster GPU.

And a next-gen expansion slot.

And faster memory.

And dual-layer optical drive.

And a higher-res screen (1680x1050 vs. 1440x900). (Yes, they could have gone even higher, but that DOES have a downside: smaller menus and text, reduced readability, greater eyestrain!)

The problem is that the OS is not yet fully resolution-independent. Windows users expect their stuff to look like crap. Apple want the UI to look right. This should be improved in Leopard -- right?

Windows currently offers more res-independence than OS X (you can enlarge the menus and window toolbars in Windows--not on Mac--although the results Windows delivers can be blocky and ugly in places). Thus, with Windows, you can have a really high-res display with tiny pixels and not lose readability as much: you you enlarge everything sharply and simply give up working space as a result--a nice option to have even if it's not a complete implementation (for instance, single pixel lines don't always scale in XP).

However, Leopard (and I assume Vista) will have the REAL thing: the whole UI perfectly scalable to any size without loss of sharpness. Not an approximation of res-independence like XP has, but full universal scalability.

This feature is ALREADY in Tiger, but disabled by default. I enable it sometimes and it's very cool. I can make EVERYTHING in Tiger, from menus to windows widgets, smaller or larger than normal. However, it's not a complete feature--it has rough edges in places and it's only there for developers to test their apps.

But is IS coming:
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

 

[NVRsayNVR]

Blah blah blah. Time for a different form factor. Getting really sick of the G4 aluminum look. C'mon apple, lets see some inovation here. If they keep following this trend the Mac Pro will be shoved in a G5 case. Keeping the same cases for the intels was a big mistake in my opinion.

I'm with you on this Truck! I want to see *NEW* innovative cases like an all black aluminum/carbon fiber look but me thinks Apple will breakout with an all new look when 10.5 hits the scene since they undoubtedly have tons of aluminum to dispense before then at least in the 15" & 17" models.

Bet the MacBook will be all new and the MacPro will change too. C'mon Apple, rock the globe!


"Think Alike... BE Different!"

 

[BlizzardBomb]

What you are asking is should I buy the Faster Smaller 100GB Battery Eater or Slower Bigger 120GB Battery Conserver? I just had a private exchange with MovieCutter about this and he says the 5400rpm 120 is what he ordered because you won't feel the difference and you will miss that extra 20GB of space. I concurr. You can so easily fill up 120GB - net 110 - in nothing flat. And remeber you will get longer battery life with the bigger slower drive too.

That's not 100% true. The 100GB 7,200rpm Hard Drive spins faster when it needs to find your things. It spins faster = It spins less = Battery life doesn't get hit as much

 

[twoodcc]

That's not 100% true. The 100GB 7,200rpm Hard Drive spins faster when it needs to find your things. It spins faster = It spins less = Battery life doesn't get hit as much

i'm not so sure that you're right. it takes more power to spin faster, correct?

 

[50548]

Have you seen the new Dell XPS Ultimate laptop? It looks like they hire the designing team from a motorcross bike manufacture to design their laptop. And to think this thing is comparable in price to the MBP 17".

Cinch

Well, the Dull "Ultimate" Crap is FUUUUUUUGLY...besides, it has a comparable if not higher price, as well as slower proc, Winblows and smaller HD...

HOW IN HELL could anyone compare that with the MBP, not to mention the supreme OS X?

XPS M1710
Metallic Black
Intel® Core™ Duo Processor T2600 (2MB Cache/2.16GHz/667MHz FSB), Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
1Gb RAM/256Mb GPU/100Gb HD/DL Drive
Total $3,474.00

MBP 17"
2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
1GB RAM/256Mb GPU/120GB Serial ATA drive/DL Drive
Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
Total $2,799.00

No thanks, there is NO comparison with any PC out there...only Windows fanboys could do that.

 

[symlink]

i'm not so sure that you're right. it takes more power to spin faster, correct?

but his point is that it won't have to spin as long....

 

[nagromme]

I've followed discussion of the laptop rpm question ever since I bought my PowerBook almost 3 years ago, and still haven't come across a good concensus

I've seen people claiming it DOES benefit speed noticeably, and people claiming that it does NOT.

I've seen people claiming it DOES harm battery life, and people claiming that it does NOT.

And then there's the noise question. And the question of whether the benefit is too minor to be worth the cost. And of course, the benefit will be for SOME tasks/apps more than others. And it will very a lot based on how much RAM you have. And... and...

All of the above often have good reasoning, and sometimes some tests, to back them up.

If anyone has a link to an authoritative, complete and recent examination of the issue, I'd be grateful

 

[twoodcc]

but his point is that it won't have to spin as long....

right. but it's not that big of a difference. i don't think it outweighs the extra power it takes to make it spin faster. but i'm not sure

 

[pjo]

"different technology"?

From Macworld's Article

Moody explained that FireWire 800 and the faster dual-layer drive — features missing from the 15-inch MacBook Pro introduced in January — were possible thanks to the use of different technology in the 17-inch model.

So can we hope that the drive in the 17" MBP is slimmer or was that a marketting way of saying there's more room in the 17"MBP?

(here's to hoping)

 

[syklee26]

carbon fiber on 17''? noway

carbon fiber on 17 inch laptop would make it too flimsy. that's why you don't see carbon fiber casing in bigger laptops.

and did you guys notice that Apple updated battery info on macbook spec section? now it says macbook pro 15 inch gets 4.5 hrs and 17 inch gets 5.5 hrs.

question is how da heck people get 4.5 hrs on this. I tried everything and the maximum i can squeeze out is 3.5 hrs.

since 17 inch mbp has more battery life (with bigger battery), I suppose the video card in this thing is also underclocked. that's surprising because battery life is not really important in such a big laptop (with people use them for more of a desktop replacement than portability).

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I suspect the 15"'s were a bit of a prototype that they released out. Now that they've worked things out, you get the "real" specs in the 17". I'd bet they'll update the 15's with the standard tech next round.

Funniest thing is the pricing.

A 15.4" with the 2.16 BTO and 120GB HD comes in at Eur 2,924.68

A 17" with same spec costs Eur 2,694.67

250 Euro cheaper than the 15" ??? That's fecked up. I suspect Apple are going to have to do some price re-structuring in its 15" range as it does not represent good value in its current form.

 

[Multimedia]

How Do You Make Everything Larger In Tiger nagromme??

And having TWO processors instead of one

A much faster GPU. next-gen expansion slot. faster memory. dual-layer optical drive.

And a higher-res screen (1680x1050 vs. 1440x900). (Yes, they could have gone even higher, but that DOES have a downside: smaller menus and text, reduced readability, greater eyestrain!)

Windows currently offers more res-independence than OS X (you can enlarge the menus and window toolbars in Windows--not on Mac--although the results Windows delivers can be blocky and ugly in places). Thus, with Windows, you can have a really high-res display with tiny pixels and not lose readability as much: you you enlarge everything sharply and simply give up working space as a result--a nice option to have even if it's not a complete implementation (for instance, single pixel lines don't always scale in XP).

However, Leopard (and I assume Vista) will have the REAL thing: the whole UI perfectly scalable to any size without loss of sharpness. Not an approximation of res-independence like XP has, but full universal scalability.

This feature is ALREADY in Tiger, but disabled by default. I enable it sometimes and it's very cool. I can make EVERYTHING in Tiger, from menus to windows widgets, smaller or larger than normal. However, it's not a complete feature--it has rough edges in places and it's only there for developers to test their apps.

But is IS coming:
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

I use the ZOOM feature found in Universal Access all the time. What feature ALREADY in Tiger are you referring to? I want to know what you mean so I can turn it on. Please explain yourself nagromme. How do you do that?

 

[macpastor]

To all you st*pid people, that think they'll be better off economically with a 17", here is my opinion:

17" MBP:
2.16 GHz
2 GB RAM
120 GB (5.400 rpm.)
$3099

15.4" MBP:
2.0 GHz
2 GB RAM
120 GB (5.400 rpm.)
$2899

So, you pay $200 for a bit larger screen, 1 usb port and a FW800, which is for 2TB external harddrives only HA! And 160 MHz (OH NO!) It's worth it for the screen, but otherwise! Ptah!

Please. The 2.16 GHz on the 15" is merely for freaks who want it as small and fast as possible.

To the drive, Apple could easily have put an 8x DL drive on the 15". The DVD's don't get bigger, so the drive is same size. Since they are both excaclty 100% same thicknes 1,00000000000000000000000000" , it is no problem to fit it into the 15". There may have been something with the space around the drive and stuff, but it is 100% possible to install a 8x DL drive in the 15" MBP. Done!

You sure are opinionated, and uneducated as far as I can tell. $200 for screen, extra chip speed, Firewire 800 and another USB port seems well worth it to me for those who really want a 17" MBP. As for the DVD drive, with more room on the 17" you can move things around, therefore allowing the drive to be slightly larger. Read the thread, read MacWorld, and get educated.

And please, for the love of pete, quit calling people stupid.

 

[eVolcre]

To all you st*pid people, that think they'll be better off economically with a 17", here is my opinion:

17" MBP:
2.16 GHz
2 GB RAM
120 GB (5.400 rpm.)
$3099

15.4" MBP:
2.0 GHz
2 GB RAM
120 GB (5.400 rpm.)
$2899

So, you pay $200 for a bit larger screen, 1 usb port and a FW800, which is for 2TB external harddrives only HA! And 160 MHz (OH NO!) It's worth it for the screen, but otherwise! Ptah!

Please. The 2.16 GHz on the 15" is merely for freaks who want it as small and fast as possible.

To the drive, Apple could easily have put an 8x DL drive on the 15". The DVD's don't get bigger, so the drive is same size. Since they are both excaclty 100% same thicknes 1,00000000000000000000000000" , it is no problem to fit it into the 15". There may have been something with the space around the drive and stuff, but it is 100% possible to install a 8x DL drive in the 15" MBP. Done!

Thanks for insulting. As far as being 'stupid' the only stupidity I see here is comparing a 2.0 gzh MBP with a 2.16 GHZ 17" MBP. How in the world does that give you an Apples to Apples comparison?

Freaks who want it as small and powerful? Maybe so. But you still have to compare using the same processor speed for those of us that DID get the 2.16 upgrade.

eV

 

[MacTruck]

I've followed discussion of the laptop rpm question ever since I bought my PowerBook almost 3 years ago, and still haven't come across a good concensus

I've seen people claiming it DOES benefit speed noticeably, and people claiming that it does NOT.

I've seen people claiming it DOES harm battery life, and people claiming that it does NOT.

And then there's the noise question. And the question of whether the benefit is too minor to be worth the cost. And of course, the benefit will be for SOME tasks/apps more than others. And it will very a lot based on how much RAM you have. And... and...

All of the above often have good reasoning, and sometimes some tests, to back them up.

If anyone has a link to an authoritative, complete and recent examination of the issue, I'd be grateful

Had a raptor 10K in my G5 and just took it out to replace with a 7200rpm 400GB Seagate. I noticed a speed drop. Now I don't notice anything. You only see an improvment when you first upgrade. Thats it. It just boots up a second faster and opens apps a few seconds faster. It doesn't make your computer faster. Go with capacity.

 

[janstett]

I waited for today to buy my mbp 15" as I expected a price drop. this does not seem to be the case.
so i will have to go for the 17".
is it really that bigger and uneasy to transport?

I didn't think a 7+ lb 17" notebook was such a burden -- until I had to make business trips to Germany and Japan while lugging several pieces of luggage. When I got back from Tokyo I got myself a 3.2 lb Thinkpad

 

[BlizzardBomb]

right. but it's not that big of a difference. i don't think it outweighs the extra power it takes to make it spin faster. but i'm not sure

Well there's no way of testing either theory unless we know the exact makes of the Hard Drives so we can check the wattage of each.

 

[ZigFilm]

I just spoke to my local Apple Store and the guy told me it would be at least 2 weeks before they get any in.... Anyone else getting this response?

 

[direzz]

To the drive, Apple could easily have put an 8x DL drive on the 15". The DVD's don't get bigger, so the drive is same size. Since they are both excaclty 100% same thicknes 1,00000000000000000000000000" , it is no problem to fit it into the 15". There may have been something with the space around the drive and stuff, but it is 100% possible to install a 8x DL drive in the 15" MBP. Done!

how can you possibly know that? do you work for apple?

heres how i see it. after visiting the apple store and checking out the mac book "pros" (because pro features include an isight camera ", i have coem to the conclusion that apple focused way to much on aesthetics on the 15 inch. was it really nescesary to get it down to 1 inch? whats next, half inch laptops? if apple wanted to make pro laptops i dont see the need to have a one inch laptop. look at all the hardware they cut out! ridiculous.

that 17 inch is a PRO laptop tho. if i was in film, i would love to have one of those babies on set with me

 

[sdavis8888]

So who wants to do a 17" apple VS dell comparison?

Looks like the MBP 17 will stack up much better than the 15 did.

I went to Dell's site, starting with a base model Inspiron E1705 I selected Core Duo at 2.16GHz, 1 GB Dual Channel Ram 667MHZ, XGA+ 17" Screen, 120 GB 5400RPM HD, 8x DVD+/-RW, 802.11g, Bluetooth, and a 256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400, this gives a current price of $2,006. Switch to a Core Duo at 2.0GHz and your price is $1,766. I would love to see an Apple 17" MacBook Pro at both/either of those price points. The Firewire 800 port and the other differences don't begin to account for a $700 price differential. Apple charges a big premium for their hardware, it is a lot more obvious now how big that differential is. Also, where is the option for a 17" MBP with a 2 GHZ processor?

 

[JAT]

The Dell screen really blows the Macbook's out of the water though. 1920 x 1200 is huge. I mean thats really good.

Um, was that a typo? My coworker has a Dell 15" with the 1920 pixel screen, so I'm pretty familiar with it. First off, it is way too many pixels for that size, although the 17" might be ok. More resolution is generally better, but there are limits. I have excellent vision and everything is just plain too small. He sits hunched over it, squinting. 2nd, the Apple screens clearly blow away Dell's. There is no comparison. I'm talking quality here, not just resolution. After seeing the Apple and Sony screens, I just can't look at others, not on my dollar.

 

[Multimedia]

1 GB Ram is $73 From OmniTech

To all you st*pid people, that think they'll be better off economically with a 17", here is my opinion:

17" MBP:
2.16 GHz
2 GB RAM
120 GB (5.400 rpm.)
$3099

15.4" MBP:
2.0 GHz
2 GB RAM
120 GB (5.400 rpm.)
$2899

You don't pay Apple $240 for a 1 GB ram stick wihen you can buy it from Omni Tech for $73 via Ramseeker.com. Are you daft? Looks to me like you're the st*pid one Josias. Anybody that would buy extra RAM from Apple is bordering on the INSANE.

 

[jaxstate]

It's a nice machince. But how would one be "screwed" by not having a Gig E port. 100 Base T is all one will need.

What is "SLI" and how do you rationalize a 5400rpm 100GB HD and NO Gigabit Ethernet? You are Screwed when you hook up to the network. The battery life is much lower. Apple's is 68 Watt Hour. And I don't see OS X being offered here.