Apple Releases 17'' MacBook Pro

[milo]

i will agree with you on this. except most cheap routers are only 100

You don't think someone buying a top of the line laptop would be willing to spring for $40-50 to get the top speed on their ethernet connection?

It is much faster...but I don't think a person without it would be "screwed".

Someone buying a machine like this obviously cares about performance and wouldn't be happy with a slow network connection, a machine costing over $2k shouldn't have a blatant weakness like 100baseT. Might as well say G3/667 is all one will need.

 

[jaxstate]

🙄 If that's the case, someone could bitch and moan that apple didnt put 10GbE port on their high end machine.

You don't think someone buying a top of the line laptop would be willing to spring for $40-50 to get the top speed on their ethernet connection?


Someone buying a machine like this obviously cares about performance and wouldn't be happy with a slow network connection, a machine costing over $2k shouldn't have a blatant weakness like 100baseT. Might as well say G3/667 is all one will need.

 

[Dr_Maybe]

I wonder if we are going to start to see 1 gig of ram become standard on Pro models perhaps???? That would rock!

1GB RAM is already standard on the $2500 15".

 

[sam10685]

the CPU should be upgradeable. also, they gotta do something about the hard drive. it's only down-grade-able. what's up with that?

 

[Dr_Maybe]

I could care less about colors (silver does just fine thank you) but I don't want a 'dumbed' down portable just because I want a small Mac 😱

And I want a Quad G5 in a 1" thick 17" MBP, but that just ain't gonna happen. There has to be compromises, when you reduce the physical size of a computer.

 

[gnasher729]

Just wondering why the New 17inch macbook is £430/$766 more expensive in the UK than it in the states?

They are not made in the states, or go via the states when they are shipped are they? So it's not a geographical cost. Why the extra cost? or are English mac users just richer or prepared to pay more?

17.5 percent VAT in the UK, which is included in the quoted price. Sales tax in the USA is different from state to state, much much lower than 17.5 percent, and never included in the quoted price. That means anyone in the US who orders a MacBook Pro for $2999 will actually pay more than $2999 because the appropriate sales tax will be added.

 

[iLEZ]

the CPU should be upgradeable. also, they gotta do something about the hard drive. it's only down-grade-able. what's up with that?

Correct me if i am wrong but:
Isn't the HDD of the 17" 120Gb with an option for a faster but smaller 100gb one? There are no 2.5" S-ATA disks over 120Gb available at the time i think.

On another note:
This is just great! I can't wait to switch! I starve for information on the MacBook! 😱

 

[twoodcc]

You don't think someone buying a top of the line laptop would be willing to spring for $40-50 to get the top speed on their ethernet connection?

i said i agreed

 

[absurdio]

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!😀

...so your big discovery is that computers cost less when they have fewer features? golly! that IS profound! All I have to do to (possibly) save $200 is get a slower SL superdrive, lose my FW800 (I actually DO have a FW800 external hd, so that does matter to me), take a hit to processor speed, accept a smaller screen, and embrace my smaller speakers? sweet! you, sir, are one shrewd business man. Also, look at my last post. If you can get more features in the 17" for LESS than the 15", yeah, i think it's safe to say that's a wise economic investment.

But hey. If you're such a fan of cutting features, anyway, go buy yourself a Dell. They suck AND they're cheap! What luck for you!

Oh, and regarding your "Apple can easily put a 8XDL Superdrive in the 15" MBP" comment.... um... no.

Comprehensive explanation of the DL drive in 17", and not in 15" Hope they can overcome this:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183906&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=15189632

 

[pjo]

If the harddisk isn't turned off then a 7200 RPM harddisk spins exactly as long as a 5400 RPM harddisk: All the time. If it is turned off, then you spend a lot of energy to accelerate the harddisk to its speed. Energy is proportional to speed squared; so one third more speed means 77.77 percent more rotational energy.

Okay, bad choice of words, but the disks do not spin at their max speed (7200 or 5400 RPM respectively) all the time. Depending on how much "rotational energy" we're talking about, the spin-ups of the 7200 RPM disk may account for say 5min of battery? Maybe less? (depending of course on usage ... )

Either way I guess we'll never know for sure till we see some empirical data...

 

[MatrixArchitect]

Yeah, I know...

$2799 is frickin expensive!

But then again, what do you expect, right. I'm actually thinking of ordering this thing with an EDU discount and having it sent to a friend in New Hapshire where there are no state sales taxes. Did it with my Dual Core G5!😀

 

[rxse7en]

Please give us a link where you can order a 1 GB RAM chip for a MacBook Pro at Omni Tech for $73. Or give us a link where you can order _any_ RAM for a MacBook Pro at Omni Tech for any price. Or any link where you can buy 1 GB of DDR2 RAM for under $140.

http://dealram.com/prices/systems/Apple-Mac-Book-Pro-PC2-5300-DDR2-SO-DIMMS/41495/1GB.html

Which brings me to a point I've been wanting to ask: if there were 2gb ram modules available for the 'Books would they be able to handle 4gb of ram?

B

 

[Peyton]

I for one marked this as positive. Who cares if something is a good value compared to the smaller model. All those people the 15 should be happy because they did CHOOSE it for some reason or another, the 17 inch turns out to be a better deal (in my book) and therefore, either don't buy rev. A products, or listen when people (me) say to wait to see the whole product line before springing for something you could have waited 6 months for.

 

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by nagromme
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? 😕 😱

Will do 🙂

I'm not talking about Zoom, but about this:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/20
(Search for "Scalable User Interface" and click to zoom their example image to full size.)

You activate that hidden feature using Quartz Debug, one of the developer tools included on your Tiger DVD.

Tip: if you don't want to install ALL the dev tools just to get that one, you can use Pacifist (search versiontracker.com) to extract just that one app from the dev tools package on the DVD. (It took some digging before I found Quartz Debug, but it's there, and it does work all by itself with none of the other dev tool installation required.)

But BE WARNED: the feature is incomplete and not ready for the public yet. Menus and text look great... many other things do not (they appear, blurry, blocky, or distorted at the moment), but you can still play with the feature and imagine how good it WILL be when ALL the graphics are sharp and perfect. Also, if you log out and back in, a few things (like menu bar icons) will look better than they did when you first changed the res scaling.

Play with making things smaller (more workspace) or bigger (more readable). Both useful, and both adjustable on the fly!

Can't wait for Leopard! This feature we already KNOW about is enough to be worth the $99 (at Amazon 🙂 ) for me.

The X1600? 😡 Are you kidding me, Apple?? The 17" is supposed to be their top-of-the-line, professional laptop that all other laptop manufacturers try to emulate. Add some thickness to the notebook for a 7800 or 7900 GTX. This is ridiculous.

Bulky-and-heavy mega-laptops can do certain things (like games) better than a more portable machine can. They're not as good as a desktop, but they can be a good compromise for some purposes.

Apple offers no model in that category--and I can see why: the market for more portability is much bigger I expect. I've seen the PC laptops that "add some thickness" and they are simply too massive and heavy for me.

So thick-and-heavy is a great option, and I hope Apple adds such a model someday to meet those people's needs. But that's not what this MacBook Pro is trying to be.

 

[Eniregnat]

To any of thoes outside the U.S.. Is the 17" MacBook Pro called the 43.18 cm MacBook Pro? 😉

[EDIT]And French Guyana, I believe that French Guyana officaly uses Imperial units, but perhaps I am wrong.

 

[DKZ]

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.

Perhaps, but where would ever set up with a 17" MBP in your lap? At home, at the cafe, at school? Not really right, a 17" laptop demands a table no matter how thin and light it is, it's just to much of a hazzle to balance that thing on your lap.

So both of those are just desktops you can bring with ya.

 

[twoodcc]

Perhaps, but where would ever set up with a 17" MBP in your lap? At home, at the cafe, at school? Not really right, a 17" laptop demands a table no matter how thin and light it is, it's just to much of a hazzle to balance that thing on your lap.

So both of those are just desktops you can bring with ya.

it's alot easier to carry around a 6.8 pound laptop, than a thick 15 pound laptop.

 

[nagromme]

Perhaps, but where would ever set up with a 17" MBP in your lap? At home, at the cafe, at school? Not really right, a 17" laptop demands a table no matter how thin and light it is, it's just to much of a hazzle to balance that thing on your lap.

It's only maybe an inch wider than the 15" on each side. Very easily usable in your lap.

The issue is more one of portability, however 🙂 My 15" PowerBook is certainly not too big for my lap--but I still wish it were smaller for the sake of being more carryable. That's why I'll go for 12"-13" next time.

 

[Fab_Fab]

To any of thoes outside the U.S.. Is the 17" MacBook Pro called the 43.18 cm MacBook Pro? 😉

[EDIT]And French Guyana, I believe that French Guyana officaly uses Imperial units, but perhaps I am wrong.

That would be funny. But even in europe the sizes of screens are in inches. But the other Sizes are in cm so it isn't 1" thick but about 2,5 cm

 

[milo]

🙄 If that's the case, someone could bitch and moan that apple didnt put 10GbE port on their high end machine.

Except that you probably won't find that available on ANY laptop, or few other machines. 1 gig is usefull, the switchers have gotten pretty cheap, and it's widespread enough to interface with. Quit pretending that things that aren't interesting to you don't have any value to others.

i said i agreed

You also said 1G routers aren't cheap. I don't consider $40-50 that expensive, especially for someone buying one of these.

 

[Gatezone]

And I want a Quad G5 in a 1" thick 17" MBP, but that just ain't gonna happen. There has to be compromises, when you reduce the physical size of a computer.

Fujistu, Sony, and others are making dual core featherweight systems... that's one of the points to moving to Intel in the first place. Replacing the whole line of Mac laptops with the same heavy weight systems is not a compromise, it's Marketing and pure Apple positioning at the expense of the early adopters of its new technology mix. Gotta love 'em, gotta hate 'em.

Come on... Apple can't make a 12-13 inch light weight when it crams 60Mb's of space into their iPods? Hmmmmm... don't think so. They just need to keep their order pipeline full while they rethink their next bumps, reductions, and planned 'obsolestation' (combination of obsolete and molestation of consumers), let the consumer do the beta testing of the new hardware in the old form factor and then come out with the really innovative models in the next round. This round of products is just proof of concept and a way to ease out of the big performance lie that Mac had going for so many years.

GZ

 

[milo]

Come on... Apple can't make a 12-13 inch light weight when it crams 60Mb's of space into their iPods?

This release (and this thread) has nothing to do with the 12/13 laptop. There's demand for a large screen one and this is addressing it. There will be a 12/13 later on, and we'll see how big it is then. For all we know, they may release the 13 and follow it up later with an ultralight 12 or 11 with stripped down features (like no optical drive).

But an ultralight isn't a replacement for a small full-featured laptop, they are two different products for two different audiences. Of course a 17 is going to be big and relatively heavy, are there any 17's much smaller or lighter than this one?

 

[nagromme]

Come on... Apple can't make a 12-13 inch light weight when it crams 60Mb's of space into their iPods?

Yes, they can, and I'll buy one if they do!

But there's nothing wrong with the size/weight of the current machines: if they were smaller, they'd have to sacrifice something. There's room in the world for multiple levels of size vs. performance.

The current 15" and 17" pack far more power and capability into the same space than ever before--that's not just marketing. If those models aren't the best for YOUR own needs, then stay tuned. There might be other Intel Mac portables coming 🙂

 

[TopGear]

finally!

17.5 percent VAT in the UK, which is included in the quoted price. Sales tax in the USA is different from state to state, much much lower than 17.5 percent, and never included in the quoted price. That means anyone in the US who orders a MacBook Pro for $2999 will actually pay more than $2999 because the appropriate sales tax will be added.

Bravo! I was wondering when someone was going to explain this. Nicely done!

 

[iBoris]

Ahhhhhhhhh...

...well, it took a while to read all that. But thought I should savour this post, as I do not do it very often!

This morning I woke up and forgot to post my signed finance agreement with Apple Finance, for a MacBook Pro and iWorks '06 - total £1906 app.

This afternoon, I cancelled said order and replaced it with a shiny new 17" model (kept the 100GN 7200 drive) and iWorks '06 - total £2054 app.

Someone is looking down on me 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

[Usual lurking is resumed]