pretty good, glad to see the dual layer burner, and firewire 800, otherwise it seems standard to me. Bring on the macbook!
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
1984 said:
I doubt that "Most PC laptops have dual-layer drives," especially since most Windows laptops sell for less than $800.
In your statement, you're describing one part of the high-end market. There are still companies like Sony and Lenovo that make $2500+ laptops with no internal DVD drives.
Companies make trade-offs with every computer they produce. I think Apple should have gone for the dual-layer burners in the 15", but it's hardly as simple as saying that that is the only reasonable choice. I am glad they chose the 8x dual-layer drives for the 17".
Hell Yeah!!!
$200 cheaper than I thought it might be, but I was seriously thinking that they were gonna introduce it at $3299 [same as the original 17" G4 PowerBook], so actually it's $500 less than I thought it would be.
It really looks to me like we may see both 15" MBP's come down $200 each when the processors price's drop at the end of May. Maybe even by as early as tomorrow or sometime this week in order to keep the Apple hype going at NAB and to really celebrate Apple's 30th! I wish this would be the case, but if the price reductions happen, they might happen alongside a MacBook announcement [shipping at the end of May of course
] later this week... or next Tuesday.
Only $300 difference between the 17" & 15" is way too little as far as I'm concerned. At least the $2499 model has gotta come down to $2299. If the $1999 model were to come down to $1799... schweeeet.
$200 cheaper than I thought it might be, but I was seriously thinking that they were gonna introduce it at $3299 [same as the original 17" G4 PowerBook], so actually it's $500 less than I thought it would be.
It really looks to me like we may see both 15" MBP's come down $200 each when the processors price's drop at the end of May. Maybe even by as early as tomorrow or sometime this week in order to keep the Apple hype going at NAB and to really celebrate Apple's 30th! I wish this would be the case, but if the price reductions happen, they might happen alongside a MacBook announcement [shipping at the end of May of course
] later this week... or next Tuesday. Only $300 difference between the 17" & 15" is way too little as far as I'm concerned. At least the $2499 model has gotta come down to $2299. If the $1999 model were to come down to $1799... schweeeet.
Leoff said:
I promise I'm never going to complain about the Macbook if it comes out with acceptable prices. No complain about video card, screen resolution, hdd capacity, nothing at all
MacQuest said:Hell Yeah!!!
$200 cheaper than I thought it might be, but I was seriously thinking that they were gonna introduce it at $3299 [same as the original 17" G4 PowerBook], so actually it's $500 less than I thought it would be.
It really looks to me like we may see both 15" MBP's come down $200 each when the processors price's drop at the end of May. Maybe even by as early as tomorrow or sometime this week in order to keep the Apple hype going at NAB and to really celebrate Apple's 30th! I wish this would be the case, but if the price reductions happen, they might happen alongside a MacBook announcement [shipping at the end of May of course
Only $300 difference between the 17" & 15" is way too little as far as I'm concerned. At least the $2499 model has gotta come down to $2299. If the $1999 model were to come down to $1799... schweeeet.
Yikes...what if the MacBook's start at 1299? Oh well, who cares, I have a 12" PB!
Yay! Now all I need to do is convince my boss that this is worth buying... how many dollars of donuts is that? Or maybe some gourmet coffee.....
Tomaz said:is the 17" thicker than the 15" ??
Cause the reason why they didn't put double layer into the 15" was thickness issues, right?
Anyone know ?
Well, the 17" is the same thickness, but it has more overall volume. So it's easier to find places to put the various components. They could have physically fit a DL 8X drive into the 15" case, but, (I suppose) they wouldn't have had room for other things (Like maybe the CPU!
).I would guess they design the layout of the internal components of a laptop fairly early on in its design. Apple was probably hoping for a 9mm (made up that number, but you know what I mean
) DL 8X drive for the 15", created the design around that, but found they couldn't get that when it came time to finalize the components, and had to go with a 4X DL 9mm drive instead. (If Apple moved up the release date for the 15", that might have been a compromise they had to make--go with the less capable drive because the better one wasn't available yet.) For the 17" they may have allocated the 10mm (or whatever) of height they needed from the start. (Or maybe slimmer, more capable drives are now available, and we can except an update for the 15" soon!)
Had to rate negative
Interesting ... and waited for ... but ...
There is plenty of room for TWO SATA hard drives that could be raided ... giving extra performance and they really need two banks of RAM (for up to 4GB)
Glad they implemented FW800 on this one.
Interesting ... and waited for ... but ...
There is plenty of room for TWO SATA hard drives that could be raided ... giving extra performance and they really need two banks of RAM (for up to 4GB)
Glad they implemented FW800 on this one.
ImAlwaysRight said:
Don't kid yourself. The 15" and 17" MBPs, Intel iMac, and Intel Mac mini may look like their predecessor, but they most certainly are complete redesigns. Only the "shell" hasn't changed, and I'm sure those designing the circuit boards and other components will tell you that's more of a problem than it is a help.
I would suggest the MacBook hasn't been released yet because it doesn't have to be yet. It needs to be out soon, but Apple currently has an underserved high-end market (Powerbooks are underpowered, PowerMacs are "obsolete" - that is, many people are avoiding buying them despite their power because they believe Intel-only applications are on the horizon and will soon become the norm) which is why they're concentrating on the MBP (They can't do anything about the PM until Intel releases the next generation of chips)
It's a matter of priorities. Apple may know there's a large market for MacBooks, but it has low-end and mid-range machines that will suit many potential MB buyers in the meantime.
I wish I had an external FW800 to try that out on my PowerBook.bgd78 said:
I have only the FW400 though, so no help here.Glad to see such good specs coming out for those video and audio guys finally. I hate to see it when people complain that the highest line of notebook has some features that the lower one doesn't. Unfortunately, 17" is just way too large for typical portability if you don't need it for graphics rendering and such.
Hmmm
Some really nice features but there's 1 major missing (in all laptops for that matter); more memory;
Let me explain; I have 2 gigs and I'd love to have 4 GB. I demo some webapps that need specific environments. Parallels has given me this but now I need much much more memory.
Hooray for the 4 - 8 GB Macbook Pro
One can dream, not
Some really nice features but there's 1 major missing (in all laptops for that matter); more memory;
Let me explain; I have 2 gigs and I'd love to have 4 GB. I demo some webapps that need specific environments. Parallels has given me this but now I need much much more memory.
Hooray for the 4 - 8 GB Macbook Pro
One can dream, not
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?
personally the 15" is the perfect size, but as i am a video editor, the DL 8x, fw 800 and a bigger screen just makes so much sense...
and the price is veeery tempting compared to the 15" which is actually 220 Euros more expensive in france.
pricedrop by tomorrow after all folks like me ordered the 17" today???
so i will have to go for the 17".
is it really that bigger and uneasy to transport?
personally the 15" is the perfect size, but as i am a video editor, the DL 8x, fw 800 and a bigger screen just makes so much sense...
and the price is veeery tempting compared to the 15" which is actually 220 Euros more expensive in france.
pricedrop by tomorrow after all folks like me ordered the 17" today???
Some may note that the new 17" MacBook Pro, at the same thickness of the 15" MacBook Pro (1.0"), includes an 8x dual layer SuperDrive versus the 4x single layer drive in the 15" model. It might be recalled that the reasoning for not including a faster, dual layer SuperDrive in the 15" MacBook Pro was because of the necessary space not being available inside the case; the 15" MacBook Pro could only use a 9mm tall mechanism as opposed to the 12mm mechanism currently required for dual layer capability and the greater speed. How, then, can the 17" MacBook Pro (or even the previous 17" PowerBook), at the exact same thickness, include this drive? Does this mean Apple was holding back? Is the 8x DL drive due in a 15" MacBook Pro imminently? The answer is no: the reason why the drive didn't (and still doesn't) fit in the 15" MacBook Pro is because the wider trackpad mechanism Apple chose to use encroaches internally on the space needed for a 12mm drive by about 1/8" laterally. However, this is not the case on the 17" MacBook Pro.
Also, I'd strongly disagree that the 15" is all of a sudden a "bad deal". For example:
- The 17" is way too large for me; the 15" is the perfect size
- I have no need or use whatsoever for dual layer capability in the SuperDrive, and am not affected at all by the fact that it is 4x
- I have no need or use whatsoever for FireWire 800
Please, people. The 15" MacBook Pro is still going to be the absolute prime choice for many, many people, just like the 15" PowerBook was.
Also, I'd strongly disagree that the 15" is all of a sudden a "bad deal". For example:
- The 17" is way too large for me; the 15" is the perfect size
- I have no need or use whatsoever for dual layer capability in the SuperDrive, and am not affected at all by the fact that it is 4x
- I have no need or use whatsoever for FireWire 800
Please, people. The 15" MacBook Pro is still going to be the absolute prime choice for many, many people, just like the 15" PowerBook was.
