Apple Releases the MacBook Pro

[macoday]

Sounds like the iPod arguments all over agian.

Sad that we still have to pay Apple's premium. I thought (like almost everyone) that the switch over to Intel would bring slightly lower prices.

If you want more hardware per dollar don't buy an Apple. Go get your mp3 player from Samsung, and your PC from Dell. And when it starts to fall apart, and look like ***** don't complain, just remember how much you saved.

 

[WillMak]

Only 5.5 hours of battery life!?!? I thought the switch to intel was suppose to bring about a new age of battery lastingness. It can't even beat the ibook yet!

 

[macEfan]

Only 5.5 hours of battery life!?!? I thought the switch to intel was suppose to bring about a new age of battery lastingness. It can't even beat the ibook yet!

yeah but the new Mac Book Pro's screen is 3" larger than the ibook 12", and the hard drive is faster, etc...so it will all use more power anyway

 

[Val-kyrie]

Missing the Speed Mark

why is everybody so impressed?? they should've gone with 1.8 and 2.0 Ghz :/

I was just over at Acer's website and I see they have introduced a new 4200 model with a 2.16Ghz Core Duo processor.

Yes. And iBooks shoud run Core Duos at 1.67 and 1.83 GHz. How is Apple going to justify a consumer line without Core Duos, and a Pro line without the top of the line processors, if this is the direction they are going?

 

[sjl]

Nice update. I'm halfway tempted to jump, but given the state of my finances at the moment, and the history of problems with the first revision of any new hardware, I'm going to sit tight until at least rev B.

I'm a little surprised that I haven't seen somebody point this out, though: if the update for the professional laptop line is the MacBook Pro, does this mean that the update for the consumer laptop line will be the MacBook Con?

 

[thes]

okay i guess no one really know what the difference is with these new intel processors or what the advantages are and disadvantages are. it seem like everyone is either applauding apple or booing them without really knowing why.

someone please:

1) what are the advantages and disadvantages with these intel chips?

2)why are they so much better that is has everyone making a big deal about them.

3)and if they are so great, where is the speed test that prove the new macbooks and new intel processors have alot more power than the power pcs besides having the dual cores

Here you are...

Advantages of Intel Chips:
Speed!

These are Dual-Core processors, which basically means there are effectively 2 processors running in parallel to each other. So, its much faster.

Also, power consumption and heat produced should be lower and should (theoretically) result in less heat and a longer battery life.

Disadvantages of Intel Chips:
Because they run different instructions to the old PowerPC Macs, all programs written for older Macs have to be translated (this is done automatically and invisibily, so you wont need to worry about it)... The problem is that the translation takes time and so some programs will be slower, although this should be more than offset by the faster processors. Also, a few programs may not run at all.

In the future, however, this would not be a problem as new programs will be written for the Intel Macs, so no translation will be necessary.

 

[Randall]

okay i guess no one really know what the difference is with these new intel processors or what the advantages are and disadvantages are. it seem like everyone is either applauding apple or booing them without really knowing why.

someone please:

1) what are the advantages and disadvantages with these intel chips?

Advantages are a 667MHz bus speed as opposed to the 167MHz bus seen in the G4 models. The dual core is basically like having 2 processors in one. They are made with a 65nm process as opposed to the 90nm that the G4 was (smaller is better here for reasons I don't need to get into). It's x86 based, meaning you can dual boot into windows natively. Finally, there will be less power consumption on the Core Duo then the G4, and much less then the G5.

2)why are they so much better that is has everyone making a big deal about them.

Because they are much better.

3)and if they are so great, where is the speed test that prove the new macbooks and new intel processors have alot more power than the power pcs besides having the dual cores

See the keynote specs.

 

[surroundfan]

Yes. And iBooks shoud run Core Duos at 1.67 and 1.83 GHz. How is Apple going to justify a consumer line without Core Duos, and a Pro line without the top of the line processors, if this is the direction they are going?

From the Intel price list:

Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Mobile (FCBGA6 / FCPGA6) Price Jan '06 (01/02)
Price
T2600 (2M L2 cache 2.16 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $637 -
T2500 (2M L2 cache 2 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $423 -
T2400 (2M L2 cache 1.83 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $294 -
T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $241 -
Intel® Core™ Solo Processor
Mobile (FCBGA6 / FCPGA6) Price Jan '06 (01/02)
T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $209 -

It's quite a big price jump from the 1.83GHz to the 2GHz and a gaping chasm to the 2.16GHz. Hence no 2GHz MacBooks (yet)...

 

[thes]

Yes. And iBooks shoud run Core Duos at 1.67 and 1.83 GHz. How is Apple going to justify a consumer line without Core Duos, and a Pro line without the top of the line processors, if this is the direction they are going?

A Core Duo at 1.67 and 1.83 GHz is more or less top of the line.

Very few PC manufacturers have actually started using Dual Core processors for their notebooks. Those who have done so have mainly limited their line to the 1.67 and 1.83 (such as the ThinkPads). Also, there is definitely not one that is this light and thin.

 

[mandoman]

no g4 price drop?

I for one am glad they are still selling the powerbook g4.
You can still order it CTO/BTO even. I'm a little surprised and
dissapointed that they didn't lower the price though???

I for one think the new Macbook is sweet. Awesome GPU/CPU,
isight,frontrow/remote, thinner, better screen, same sweet AL finish.
Bummer about FW800,modem,s-video,DVD-DL being MIA though.

As sweet as the new macbook is, I need something to run pro
apps NOW, so looks like a 17" g4 powerbook is in the cards for me
till rev b or c macbook...

Mandoman

PS. I too think the name MacBook is lame. Someone should start a
petition to bring back the powerbook name!

 

[Val-kyrie]

Too much Kool-Aid

The MacBook is THE notebook for the whole market, and no PC equivalent is, well, equivalent.

What about the Acer TravelMate 8200??? It's not OS X, but the point of comparison here is hardware. I like Apple, but let's not check our brains out at the door.

 

[Randall]

From the Intel price list:

Intel® Core™ Duo processor
Mobile (FCBGA6 / FCPGA6) Price Jan '06 (01/02)
Price
T2600 (2M L2 cache 2.16 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $637 -
T2500 (2M L2 cache 2 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $423 -
T2400 (2M L2 cache 1.83 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $294 -
T2300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $241 -
Intel® Core™ Solo Processor
Mobile (FCBGA6 / FCPGA6) Price Jan '06 (01/02)
T1300 (2M L2 cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65nm) - $209 -

It's quite a big price jump from the 1.83GHz to the 2GHz and a gaping chasm to the 2.16GHz. Hence no 2GHz MacBooks (yet)...

There is your reason right there. Apple's precious margin. Just look at the money they're making here.

 

[boombashi]

I agree. I think they could have gone with the higher speed yonahs. All I can think is that they will update them soon and hopefully often.

From the Intel keynote it sounds like these new chips aren't exactly growing on trees. They will be plentyful soon enough, but until then...that is probably the reason Apple has the slightly slower chips right now. still 4-5x faster sounds pretty darn good to me

 

[Warped1]

I was going to spend up to $1500 on an ibook today but now I am looking at something else.

Maybe this http://www.gateway.com/products/gconfig/proddetails.asp?seg=sb&system_id=s7510nb&clv=Img .

Speced out with a 2Ghz Core Dual and 1GB RAM with upgraded video for $1,598.99

 

[thes]

It's x86 based, meaning you can dual boot into windows natively

I doubt that would be possible... especially not without invalidating your warranty.

 

[Randall]

I was going to spend up to $1500 on an ibook today but now I am looking at something else.

Maybe this http://www.gateway.com/products/gconfig/proddetails.asp?seg=sb&system_id=s7510nb&clv=Img .

Gateway sucks ass

 

[xomy]

First Pricecut? :-S

Having seen pricing at £1799 for the 1.67GHz Macbook and been thoroughly disappointed by this pricing level (works out $1000 more than US price), I am somewhat releived to have seen it drop down to £1429 (about £30 than the original 15inc) tonight (now around $350 more than US price).

Also looking at the Specs, did anyone notice the following:

# Maximum operating altitude: 10,000 feet
# Maximum storage altitude: 15,000 feet
# Maximum shipping altitude: 35,000 feet

It is placed in the "Electrical and environmental requirements" section, so could simply refer to the power adapter; however if it is related to the Macbook itself, don't these figures seem just a tad strange... as international flights tend to operate at 35,000 feet.

 

[Randall]

I doubt that would be possible... especially not without invalidating your warranty.

you will be able to dual boot into windows natively. that won't invalidate anything, because you can just reformat before you take it in for servicing. Unless of course it's the HD that broke.

 

[bluebomberman]

Ars Technica is reporting a battery life of just over 3 hours on a full charge...

I'm guessing that processor speed was set to highest and all power saving features were turned off on the demo models...that said, 3 hours ain't all that promising. Wonder if they'll make improvements before it ships in February.

 

[Aaon]

Count me as one who is quite satisfied by this new release. It's far faster than any other Mac laptop, and is on par with the PC offerings of the day. The graphics card, always a weak spot in the Apple hardware lineup, is fantastic. Dual core, high speed bus, all in all it looks like a great machine. I appreciate the complaints of no DL DVD burner and no firewire 800, but i think people are missing the larger point, which is that Apple has issued a cutting edge, high powered laptop for the first time in quite a few years. And I like the aluminum design, personally. It is sleek and stylish, and even after 3 years of Albooks, it still looks fresh. I say, buy one and enjoy. I know I have waited long enough!

 

[mnstr_trd_sd]

finally! thank you thes and randall.

 

[d.f]

A Core Duo at 1.67 and 1.83 GHz is more or less top of the line.

Very few PC manufacturers have actually started using Dual Core processors for their notebooks. Those who have done so have mainly limited their line to the 1.67 and 1.83 (such as the ThinkPads). Also, there is definitely not one that is this light and thin.

i thought most other manufacturers are treating the 2ghz + Yonah's as top of the line and their consumer being 1.5 & 1.67....

 

[boombashi]

There is your reason right there. Apple's precious margin. Just look at the money they're making here.

Apple is in the business to make money, but lets not forget that Apple has custom chip sets and architecture for these machines...not to mention the OS is far different. We can't really compare PC and Mac performance until we can get some real world testing.

 

[thes]

you will be able to dual boot into windows natively. that won't invalidate anything, because you can just reformat before you take it in for servicing. Unless of course it's the HD that broke.

i think you will need to change a little more than just the harddrive to make your Mac run windows...

exactly why you would want to run windows, I really have no idea

 

[thes]

Having seen pricing at £1799 for the 1.67GHz Macbook and been thoroughly disappointed by this pricing level (works out $1000 more than US price), I am somewhat releived to have seen it drop down to £1429 (about £30 than the original 15inc) tonight (now around $350 more than US price).

Also looking at the Specs, did anyone notice the following:

# Maximum operating altitude: 10,000 feet
# Maximum storage altitude: 15,000 feet
# Maximum shipping altitude: 35,000 feet

It is placed in the "Electrical and environmental requirements" section, so could simply refer to the power adapter; however if it is related to the Macbook itself, don't these figures seem just a tad strange... as international flights tend to operate at 35,000 feet.

Its to do with air pressure... dont worry, planes are pressurised properly!