So anyone know where I can purchase a the new mbp dual layer drive? And is the 17in dual layer drive the same or has that been updated to be faster?
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 Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tedster said:
You will not regret it! There is a disproportionate amount of disinformation here (never able to combine those two words before), but mostly it is people enjoying the Mac 'experience'. It looks like you have purchased a fine machine. If you are like my friends, family, Company and me, you will have zero issues.
Have you used OSX before? If not, you are only in for a short learning curve. Where I see people get frustrated is when they assume everything should be where they have learned it is (in the PC world). Let's face it, MS changes WHERE things are with every release. OSX is more like a 'learn once, use often' (LOUO) kind of deal. So, first learn how to use HELP. That will give you the roadmap to where things are located. The rest is very easy.
After a short period of time, you will probably find, Windows has lost its appeal. It is not the 'evil empire' some suggest. But, the elegance of OSX is unrivaled by other offerings. Welcome!
When I download things to measurebate to, even an 8 MiB 2D graphics card is fine. As long as I get "millions" of colors, I get off fine.iViking said:
imacintel said:
I dont beleive so. I mean look at the computer, the entire computer is the same, except for a new DVD drive and a FW800 port. The hardware cant bed so different that they apple screwed up twice. Also, look how randomly, and how long it took them to release this update. I bet they got most/all the bugs out before shipping now.
I don't feel like reading through all 38 pages to see if someone already said this so... the refurb Mac Book Pros are down to $1,449 from $1,699 (I think). So now they have a Mac Book with a real video card and larger screen on the cheap.
So many replies....
So many replies....
Funny thing, i did'nt even need a new laptop. I was just sucked into the hoopla of it all. Now that i had purchased. I feel content strangley enough. now i can sleep at night without stalking these forums
Of course you'd prefer to have everything locally. But you have to be reasonable. Everyone complains about heat issues, portability, etc. Then the hard drive has to be at least a little smaller or a little slower. It's just the nature of having a notebook. If you can't make due (and then some) with a 100GB or 120GB drive, you need to get something other than a notebook.ChrisA said:
aiden: you are actually only getting 262k colors, and not 16m. The 15.4" CM panel used is a 6bit+2dithered system, which does not give a true 16 million colors, but dithers to achieve a "similar" result.
New screens are being produced which do have higher specs though, and you should be able to get all your colors within the next year or so.
BTW: CM has new 15.4" panels available now. Same 1440x960 resolution, but with a 10ms response time vs the current 25 if the panel used in the macbook pro. Wonder if apple put the new one in the c2d systems?
New screens are being produced which do have higher specs though, and you should be able to get all your colors within the next year or so.
BTW: CM has new 15.4" panels available now. Same 1440x960 resolution, but with a 10ms response time vs the current 25 if the panel used in the macbook pro. Wonder if apple put the new one in the c2d systems?
digitalbiker said:
I have to disagree with this. I currently own and have owned various notebooks with the 100GB 5400rpm, 100GB 7200rpm, 120GB 5400rpm and now 160GB in my current MBP, Not including the new MBP I just ordered. Anyway, in any of my own tests/benchmarks, as well as most of what I've seen online, the 160GB drive is a good bit faster than the 100GB 7200rpm models. The 7200rpm drives can outpace the 160GB units in seek times, especially when reading from the outter extremeties of the platters, but for consistant usage and general tasks, even fairly randomized access, the 60% more data density really does the trick. I would rank the 100GB 7200rpm and the 120GB 5400rpm about dead even in overall performance. Randomized access of lots of small files is still a bit faster on the 100GB drive vs the 120GB, but that's not the typical scenario for most applications.
digitalbiker said:
Yep... I love the glossy screen. The only real "pro" complaint that can be made is one I've commented on myself. The extra perceivable contrast or the ways the colors tend to "pop" on the glossy screen can be problematic for users doing print and color work. However, if you take the time to calibrate the screen and understand what you're looking at (more like a glossy photo vs. a satin magazine print), you will be just fine. And while the glossy does catch more glare for me at night with lamps/lights on in the house, it's hardly problematic. And the thing totally rocks outside in daytime light conditions. I tried it after a discussion here in the forums and did it again today. It also performs better than my matte screen desktop monitors with bright sunlight pouring into my office.
bob_hearn said:
I went from an older 17" to the MBP 15" (same resolution, not sure what your 17" has for res) I prefer it much better, its actually a lot easier to carry around and use, especially if you ever take a train or airplane. Unless you really need max screen real estate all the time, the 15" is a nice choice.
bloodycape said:
I guess once it's determined which drives Apple is using, you can probably find a vendor for one. Apple will probably have them eventually through their parts service, but at a steep price (and limited availability). But the new drives are 6X on the 15" and 8X on the 17". I don't know what all the specs are as I didn't notice that anywhere on Apple's site. I'm sure DL burning is slower than that (probably 2X and 4X for the 15" and 17") and I'm not sure what speed CD-Rs and RWs write at or DVD-RW/+RW for that matter.
Mac-Addict said:
Get a grip.. it's a 64bit chip...if in an iMac or lap top... the chip is 64 bit not the form factor.
stephenli said:
Yeah, trying to run OpenGL anything across the laptop display and a 23/24" or 30" as a second screen would definitely get a little restrictive. But in terms of running regular apps and the OSX interface (Core Animation not withstanding), you're looking at about 3.8MB for the framebuffer for the 15" MBP screen and a bit under 11.8MB for the framebuffer for a 30" display. So, with the 128MB VRAM, figure 16MB of that will drive the two monitors at 24bit "millions of colors", leaving about 112MB free for other data... Unless you're running 3D apps, games or anything that really uses Quartz or Core Animation, and OpenGL, you'll be just fine. Even then, it will work OK, just maybe not as smooth or with less texture detail vs. the 256MB video option.
RichP said:
Good to hear you're happy with the switch.
Someone on Slashdot who has both 15" and 17" MBPs made the observation that he typically gets 45 extra minutes of battery life on the 17, and the 17 is much cooler. Plus, I read a lot of technical papers in pdf, and even on the 17, I find it a pain to not be able to get a whole page onscreen and still be able to read the text comfortably. It wouldn't be quite so bad if there were a page down key... using fn + down arrow takes two hands. (I suppose I really ought to use whatever the appropriate utility is and map F11 and F12 to page up/down; I rarely use Exposé or Dashboard anyway.)
So, I am reconsidering. Decisions, decisions...
AidenShaw said:
You might be seeing all of this through Microsoft glasses... put the Apple glasses on.. then guess again... of course if we all had Mac Pro units it would be 16gigs..
Zadillo said:
Ooops, I was thinking the i734, which is the 7900GT so I lost track there, and I confused the dimensions with the i534.
Alienware has it too, but anymore they're just a Dell XPS anyway in a different shell.
Yeah I guess so... I was confusing the dimensions... All the ones with anything better than the 7600 or ATI X1600 are at least 1.75" thick that I can find, just poking about the net.
