Apple Releases the MacBook Pro

[ZorPrime]

Who gives a flying **** about the G4. The G4 or its Freescale brother is dead. Steve shot it in the head and it fell head first off the pier. Its gone. Forget the thing and move on.

Interesting... couldn't the same be said about the "PowerBook" nameplate. Steve capped the PowerBook name, yet some would try to justify not accepting the "MacBook Pro" nameplate...

 

[271]

Interesting... couldn't the same be said about the "PowerBook" nameplate. Steve capped the PowerBook name, yet some would try to justify not accepting the "MacBook Pro" nameplate...

i was hoping for "notentosh"

 

[SiliconAddict]

Interesting... couldn't the same be said about the "PowerBook" nameplate. Steve capped the PowerBook name, yet some would try to justify not accepting the "MacBook Pro" nameplate...

Nice try at spinning it but all you got was a 360*. Its not the same thing and you know it. I stopped bitching about that about ah hour after they announced it. At this point my sig is a quiet protest unlike people screeching like baboons who have lost their banana.

 

[SiliconAddict]

i was hoping for "notentosh"

I was hoping for Macintel. Just sort of flows.. (No toilet jokes please! )

 

[.jacob]

Does the MBP have Bluetooth?

Reason I'm asking is becuase I have a Bluetooth mouse (with USB dock if needed) but I'd like to run it without the USB dock. The MBP will be my very first Mac ever, will the Logitech mouse (previously used on my PC) work on the Mac?

Thanks,
Jacob

 

[ZorPrime]

Nice try at spinning it but all you got was a 360*. Its not the same thing and you know it. I stopped bitching about that about ah hour after they announced it. At this point my sig is a quiet protest unlike people screeching like baboons who have lost their banana.

Note: I refuse to use the title MacBook.

Just Playing Devil's Advocate. But for the sake of argument, isn't a protest or refusal to use, no matter how sublime, a form of "complaining"?

 

[robbieduncan]

Does the MBP have Bluetooth?

Reason I'm asking is becuase I have a Bluetooth mouse (with USB dock if needed) but I'd like to run it without the USB dock. The MBP will be my very first Mac ever, will the Logitech mouse (previously used on my PC) work on the Mac?

Thanks,
Jacob

You could look on [http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/wireless.html]Apple's site[/url]. It's not difficult to find out.

And yes the mouse should work.

 

[Randall]

You could look on [http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/wireless.html]Apple's site[/url]. It's not difficult to find out.

And yes the mouse should work.

Nice Avatar man. Futurama rules.

 

[absurdio]

This has likely been answered by now, but if so, its still unbeknownst to me. Is there any reasonable explanation for why the IR remote is IR instead of bluetooth? With things like the omission of the FW800 and the opting for a 4x SL superdrive instead of an 8x DL, I can understand that size constraints limited Apple's options. But bluetooth is already built in. Wouldn't it take LESS space to have just made the remote bluetooth? And wouldn't that also have allowed them to not build in the (ugly) IR sensor? I don't understand their motives here. Anyone?

I'd also like to mention that about three days before the keynote that announced these things (with MagSafe!), my powerbook was yanked off a table by its power cord. Now I have to replace the power cord (which sparks and tries to set my apartment ablaze) and hope that's all I need to fix. Damn you, MagSafe. You're three days too late for me. *Sigh*

 

[zync]

I didn't call anyone names. I'm just sick of people bitching and that IS what is going on. There is a difference between talking rationally and going "OMG this thing sucks." It doesn't suck. It's a perfectly good update. May are bitching for one and only one reason: It's an Intel system. Many people, but not all, are being overly critical because there still are those who are PPC fanatics. If you've been reading multiple forums and news posts you would see it goes WELL beyond critiquing the new PowerBooks*. This is bitching to make you PPC system feel superior. I've already read some threads that are fair and ballancedTM this thread is NOT one of them. When you are at 1170 some odd posts. Yah I hink not.

It was name-calling. Saying people are bitching is name calling. You are saying we are people that bitch, which we are not. We are people who use computers in our professional lives and need them to be a complete upgrade from the last generation, not a half-assed attempt. It's great that they're faster, I have no qualms about that. What about those people out there that need to connect to FW800 systems, or even TWO FW400 systems? Not everything can be daisy-chained, especially cameras. What about those people that need to get a DVD produced on the road and need it to have more video than just an hour of quality video? You've already read a story from someone who would have lost TEN GRAND if he had a MacBook instead of a PowerBook. I'm sorry, this thing doesn't cut it for everyone, it just doesn't.

Just because something is faster does not immediately mean it's better. The screen resolution, for one, is a downgrade from the previous model. When the resolution isn't that huge to begin with, 60px by 1440px becomes a huge loss for a camera that is not needed and should be optional. I'm sorry if I'm one of the few people that think that you should upgrade everything instead of selectively upgrading and selectively downgrading a system. I'm sorry that they don't have a FW800 chipset or a slimmer DL DVD burner, but you know what? They could have waited. Waiting might have even driven up their demand.

And another thing, saying that something is useless because only 10% of the people use it, like a modem for instance, is stupid when you're talking about a pro machine. You might not use a feature everyday or every year, but on that one occasion when you need it, you'll be happy you have it, especially if it keeps your client from giving their money to someone else. Think of it this way—even though I hate car analogies for computers—would you drive your car without a spare? You may never use it. In all my years of driving, on all my cars, I've never needed my spares but that doesn't mean I'd drive a mile without one.

As an aside I'm using FW800 right now to burn a DVD off of my LaCie. Despite my HD being slow, it doesn't matter because all of that content is written to RAM and then burned, which uses up most of that speed over FW400.

 

[sphereboy]

This has likely been answered by now, but if so, its still unbeknownst to me. Is there any reasonable explanation for why the IR remote is IR instead of bluetooth? With things like the omission of the FW800 and the opting for a 4x SL superdrive instead of an 8x DL, I can understand that size constraints limited Apple's options. But bluetooth is already built in. Wouldn't it take LESS space to have just made the remote bluetooth? And wouldn't that also have allowed them to not build in the (ugly) IR sensor? I don't understand their motives here. Anyone?

if i am remembering correctly, i read somewhere the reason for IR was for integration with current universal remotes and allowing you to use your universal home theater remote to control the Mac.

At least that reasoning makes sense to me. Not sure where i read it.

 

[zync]

Looks like it to me..

Looks like someone just altered the levels in Photoshop. The drop shadow is much darker as well.

Neither S-video or DVI carry audio. The point of HDMI over DVI was that it also carries audio.

Some S-Video cables do, I've seen it. It depends on the hardware being connected. Higher end DVD players sometimes have this as a feature. I don't believe it carries anything over stereo sound though.

Hmm, getting very philosophical now, but if complaining after you buy the product affects the market, then surely complaining before you buy the product also affects the market?

So extrapolate and assuming that everyone inherrently has a selfish motivation*, surely the best course of action is to complain, wait for the market to be adversely affected, then buy the product? Just before you come to sell the product, wax lyrical about how great the product is.

In this increasingly hypothetical (and somewhat cynical) situation, one could therefore suggest that it is Apple execs (who want to maximise shareholder profit) and poor Mac owners (who begrudge others getting nicer machines) that are talking up the product, while potential purchassers are dissing the same .

*Let's not get into that debate.

You know that's not what I meant I simply meant that, though I did use the world complain rather complexly*, a complaint from a user of the system carries more impact because they're complaining about something they're currently using.

This has likely been answered by now, but if so, its still unbeknownst to me. Is there any reasonable explanation for why the IR remote is IR instead of bluetooth? With things like the omission of the FW800 and the opting for a 4x SL superdrive instead of an 8x DL, I can understand that size constraints limited Apple's options. But bluetooth is already built in. Wouldn't it take LESS space to have just made the remote bluetooth? And wouldn't that also have allowed them to not build in the (ugly) IR sensor? I don't understand their motives here. Anyone?

I posed that same question as it seems perfectly logical. I already do this with my cell phone. If they're going to give me a remote, why not make it work better than my cell phone remote? It'd also get rid of that ill-placed IR sensor. If they simply had to go with IR, why not put it right next to the iSight? You've already uglied up that part, why not keep the rest at least normal? It's not like you can easily use your PowerBook closed anyway.

*word I made up

 

[devman]

Some S-Video cables do, I've seen it. It depends on the hardware being connected. Higher end DVD players sometimes have this as a feature. I don't believe it carries anything over stereo sound though.

good luck finding audio equipment that will do anything with an audio signal from an S-VIDEO cable. (makes no sense for a high end dvd player to send only stereo quality audio through a non-standard interface).

anyway, this is well off-topic...

just one of MANY links that say the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video

 

[grahamtriggs]

if i am remembering correctly, i read somewhere the reason for IR was for integration with current universal remotes and allowing you to use your universal home theater remote to control the Mac.

At least that reasoning makes sense to me. Not sure where i read it.

Doesn't make that much sense - the need for it to work with a universal remote / home theatre is a bit limited for an iMac, even more so for a MacBook. The same could be said for Front Row.

Now a Mac Mini on the other hand - Front Row and IR remote makes a *lot* of sense

 

[zync]

good luck finding audio equipment that will do anything with an audio signal from an S-VIDEO cable. (makes no sense for a high end dvd player to send only stereo quality audio through a non-standard interface).

anyway, this is well off-topic...

just one of MANY links that say the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Video

I only say high end because there are only low end DVD players around my house and they don't do it but I have seen it done before. Wiki's are not always complete. Unless it is possible to send audio via some unknown wireless spec from a DVD player to a TV, I've seen a DVD player connected to a TV with only an S-Video connection playing both video and audio from a DVD.

 

[grahamtriggs]

Just because something is faster does not immediately mean it's better. The screen resolution, for one, is a downgrade from the previous model. When the resolution isn't that huge to begin with, 60px by 1440px becomes a huge loss for a camera that is not needed and should be optional. I'm sorry if I'm one of the few people that think that you should upgrade everything instead of selectively upgrading and selectively downgrading a system. I'm sorry that they don't have a FW800 chipset or a slimmer DL DVD burner, but you know what? They could have waited. Waiting might have even driven up their demand.

I think your 'everything upgraded' logic is flawed - for one thing, you (and I) would be happy to see a new MBP without a camera, but that would be a downgrade. It's OK that not everything is an upgrade, but there has to be a balance... what is in the system has to be right, and the price has to be right - IMHO, Apple got both of those wrong.

As far as the screen goes, I think dropping a little resolution is more or less necessary - it should at least save costs, as it is a standard, mass produced resolution used in PC laptops. Losing 1440x60 pixels isn't the end of the world, but what about exsiting software that may be expecting those pixels??

Before I go on, I'll just also say that waiting is not a good idea either - not all developers could go for the porting kit, but they need Intel hardware to port/test their applications. Making something available to them is important, but they could have waited to cut the thickness if that meant fewer compromises.

The dual-layer burner is the biggest FU as far as I'm concerned - I'm sorry, but I defy anyone to say they need the mm or two shaved off the thickness. True, DL media is expensive, but this is a system that you will be keeping for 3+ years, prices will come down. Hell, I wish Apple would make bigger, uglier kit that had the ability to swap drives, etc. like you can with PC laptops - I'm not saying they should make it exclusively, but it should be there as an option, even if they don't undercut the sexier kit. The ability to easily replace a broken drive, or upgrade it as necessary is more important to me than the looks.

Which is basically why I'm going back to PCs - Apple just doesn't give you any choice. That was acceptable when there was a benefit to being on MacOS, but that will basically be eroded by the end of the year - the hardware is going the same architecture as PCs (so no real advantage, just sexier), and Vista will largely close the OS gap. I hate some of the things that Microsoft have done / are still doing, but it's easier to put up with them than it is to have Apple miss providing what I want/need, or else force me to pay way over the odds to get it.

 

[zync]

I think your 'everything upgraded' logic is flawed - for one thing, you (and I) would be happy to see a new MBP without a camera, but that would be a downgrade. It's OK that not everything is an upgrade, but there has to be a balance... what is in the system has to be right, and the price has to be right - IMHO, Apple got both of those wrong.

I suppose, however such an "upgrade" should have been optional. If they were to remove the iSight they would still be upgrading the MacBook in terms of professional use. A professional is not going to use the iSight to record video. A professional will, however, utilize those extra 86,400 pixels.

As far as the screen goes, I think dropping a little resolution is more or less necessary - it should at least save costs, as it is a standard, mass produced resolution used in PC laptops. Losing 1440x60 pixels isn't the end of the world, but what about exsiting software that may be expecting those pixels??

You don't make sense here. First you say that dropping the resolution is necessary, which makes no sense on its own, and then you say that existing software might need those pixels?

Before I go on, I'll just also say that waiting is not a good idea either - not all developers could go for the porting kit, but they need Intel hardware to port/test their applications. Making something available to them is important, but they could have waited to cut the thickness if that meant fewer compromises.

The dual-layer burner is the biggest FU as far as I'm concerned - I'm sorry, but I defy anyone to say they need the mm or two shaved off the thickness. True, DL media is expensive, but this is a system that you will be keeping for 3+ years, prices will come down. Hell, I wish Apple would make bigger, uglier kit that had the ability to swap drives, etc. like you can with PC laptops - I'm not saying they should make it exclusively, but it should be there as an option, even if they don't undercut the sexier kit. The ability to easily replace a broken drive, or upgrade it as necessary is more important to me than the looks.

I only mentioned waiting as one option. I mentioned maintaining the original thickness as an option in a previous post. Maintaining the original thickness would have been perfectly fine by me. I disagree with the notion that Apple should make a hot-swappable drive bay. I rarely used it when I had a PC. Really, I hated it.

Which is basically why I'm going back to PCs - Apple just doesn't give you any choice. That was acceptable when there was a benefit to being on MacOS, but that will basically be eroded by the end of the year - the hardware is going the same architecture as PCs (so no real advantage, just sexier), and Vista will largely close the OS gap. I hate some of the things that Microsoft have done / are still doing, but it's easier to put up with them than it is to have Apple miss providing what I want/need, or else force me to pay way over the odds to get it.

That's a perfectly fine decision, but I'm not willing to make it. Windows Vista may be new but it'll always be Windows. It will always be flawed by having to pay favor to too many people. Even if—a BIG if—Microsoft somehow manages to pull off something nicer than OS X, the development team at Apple has less to deal with. In a year's time they will have bested Microsoft once again, and 7 years later there will be rumors of a new Windows version after succeedingly crappier special versions. Thanks Microsoft but no thanks. They can't even get their internet browser correct.

 

[grahamtriggs]

You don't make sense here. First you say that dropping the resolution is necessary, which makes no sense on its own, and then you say that existing software might need those pixels?

Sorry, I don't mean to say that it *IS* necessary, but that it does bring significant advantages - primarily that it is easier and cheaper to source screens of that resolution.

I only mentioned waiting as one option. I mentioned maintaining the original thickness as an option in a previous post. Maintaining the original thickness would have been perfectly fine by me. I disagree with the notion that Apple should make a hot-swappable drive bay. I rarely used it when I had a PC. Really, I hated it.

And I only mentioned that they should do the hot-swappable drive bay as an option. So you have your sexy MBP just as it is currently, but then there is also another model that gives you these extra options. You don't lose anything, but lots of other people gain reasons / possibilities to buy Apple.

Although I don't understand why you should hate swappable bays - OK, it may contribute to the thickness, which may be an issue in your case, but other than that it makes practically no difference to the usability of the machine (a small latch on the underside - and you could still have slot loading drives moulded to fit the lines of the machine). But you gain the ability to replace the drive if faulty, or for an upgrade, or even sacrifice the drive for an additional battery on the occassions where you need ultra long running, but don't need the drive.

That's a perfectly fine decision, but I'm not willing to make it. Windows Vista may be new but it'll always be Windows. It will always be flawed by having to pay favor to too many people. Even if—a BIG if—Microsoft somehow manages to pull off something nicer than OS X, the development team at Apple has less to deal with. In a year's time they will have bested Microsoft once again, and 7 years later there will be rumors of a new Windows version after succeedingly crappier special versions. Thanks Microsoft but no thanks. They can't even get their internet browser correct.

I don't really care about nicer than OS X, or Apple 'besting' MS again. OSes - all OSes - are already far too complicated. There is a small set of functionality that an OS should get right, and everything beyond that is just bloat. (although there are a core set of applications that also need to be readily available for an OS - but that's not quite the same thing as being part of the OS).

Opening, closing and switching between applications is pretty similar between both OSes. In many cases, Windows is actually better (how many times have you accidentally closed the wrong application in MacOS because it has the focus although all windows are minimised, or had apps running in the background consuming memory because you closed the window and not the app?). Sure, Mac has the advantage of GPU acceleration and Expose - but that gap will be closed with Vista, and it's hard to see any practical benefit that can be added.

Stability isn't really an issue worth talking about any more (both OSes can be stable/unstable depending on how you treat them). And the other important area is security - which Windows has already made some progress on, and the big issue user access/rights should also be dealt with in Vista (in much the same way as OSX). Sure, the MS apps - IE, etc. - may still have issues, but since when did you *have* to use the MS application stack?

Which basically means that if Vista delivers it's promises, both it and OS X will do everything I would want / need from an OS for the foreseeable future.

 

[absurdio]

Originally Posted by Zync
I posed that same question as it seems perfectly logical. I already do this with my cell phone. If they're going to give me a remote, why not make it work better than my cell phone remote? It'd also get rid of that ill-placed IR sensor. If they simply had to go with IR, why not put it right next to the iSight? You've already uglied up that part, why not keep the rest at least normal? It's not like you can easily use your PowerBook closed anyway.

exactly. EXACTLY. The isight is ugly enough an edition. Can't we skip the IR garbage? Though...incedentally, I can't help but be curious how you use your phone as a remote...that sounds...like exactly the kind of technological wizardry I'd spend every waking minute playing with.

 

[mpw]

...Can't we skip the IR garbage?...

It has the IR input because Apple obviously want it to be compatible with the iHome LCD remote they're releasing 'next Tuesday' along with the new Mac mini iHome DVR home media centre. The iHome remote will be a stand alone product to control any standard A/V equipment......oh, I've said too much. You ain't seen me, right!

 

[mdavey]

Is there any reasonable explanation for why the IR remote is IR instead of bluetooth? ... bluetooth is already built in. Wouldn't it take LESS space to have just made the remote bluetooth? And wouldn't that also have allowed them to not build in the (ugly) IR sensor? I don't understand their motives here. Anyone?

It'd also get rid of that ill-placed IR sensor. If they simply had to go with IR, why not put it right next to the iSight? You've already uglied up that part, why not keep the rest at least normal?

I hadn't heard the universal remote theory before but it does make some sense, especially with persistent rumors of an Apple LCD tablet-come-remote-control on its way.

The space difference is minimal. I haven't seen a picture of the USB IR controller chip they are using, but it will certainly be tiny (probaby 8mmx16mm or less). What I don't understand is why they put the IR receiver where they did - why not put it in the latch button, opposite the power LED and use a translucent white window (a bit like they did for the iMac)? Maybe Apple have had problems with the IR receiver on the new iMac or maybe the IR receiver was added to the MacBook Pro really late in the design.

One final consideration is cost. The IR receiver optical and chip are really cheap. The IR remote control is very cheap to manufacture. By comparison, a Bluetooth remote control would cost a fair bit more, even taking into account savings by not fitting the IR receiver components.

You know that's not what I meant

Kinda. I was being flippant.

I simply meant that... a complaint from a user of the system carries more impact because they're complaining about something they're currently using.

Ah, good point.

 

[Piarco]

exactly. EXACTLY. The isight is ugly enough an edition. Can't we skip the IR garbage? Though...incedentally, I can't help but be curious how you use your phone as a remote...that sounds...like exactly the kind of technological wizardry I'd spend every waking minute playing with.

Salling Clicker and either a Sony Ericsson or Nokia mobile.
Its fantastic - full iTunes functionality (including the artwork of the playing track), PowerPoint/Keynote, DVD Player, desktop (acts like a mouse) and other fun stuff. All over BT.

I'd really like a dedicated Mac remote though, with a small colour LCD display to do everything (and more hopefully) that the Salling Clicker software does. If the Mac Mini's go towards being a complete media hub, such a remote would surely be necessary?

 

[lahamus@mac.com]

Apps on the new intel mac

I am confused by what I am reading and hearing. An Apple tech told me that I would have to rebuy all applications like Office for Mac if I changed from a G5 to the new Intel Macs. Is this true? The Apple web site seems to imply that the old apps will run on the new Macs . . .

 

[~Shard~]

I am confused by what I am reading and hearing. An Apple tech told me that I would have to rebuy all applications like Office for Mac if I changed from a G5 to the new Intel Macs. Is this true? The Apple web site seems to imply that the old apps will run on the new Macs . . .

Steve Jobs said himself during the MWSF keynote that Office runs just fine under Rosetta.

 

[zync]

And I only mentioned that they should do the hot-swappable drive bay as an option. So you have your sexy MBP just as it is currently, but then there is also another model that gives you these extra options. You don't lose anything, but lots of other people gain reasons / possibilities to buy Apple.

Although I don't understand why you should hate swappable bays - OK, it may contribute to the thickness, which may be an issue in your case, but other than that it makes practically no difference to the usability of the machine (a small latch on the underside - and you could still have slot loading drives moulded to fit the lines of the machine). But you gain the ability to replace the drive if faulty, or for an upgrade, or even sacrifice the drive for an additional battery on the occassions where you need ultra long running, but don't need the drive.

Yes, it could be an option, but it's something Apple would never produce with their design philosophy, even if they could make it thin and sexy. I hate drive bays because that's just another thing to carry around.

I don't really care about nicer than OS X, or Apple 'besting' MS again. OSes - all OSes - are already far too complicated. There is a small set of functionality that an OS should get right, and everything beyond that is just bloat. (although there are a core set of applications that also need to be readily available for an OS - but that's not quite the same thing as being part of the OS).

True, I never said that wasn't true.

Opening, closing and switching between applications is pretty similar between both OSes. In many cases, Windows is actually better (how many times have you accidentally closed the wrong application in MacOS because it has the focus although all windows are minimised, or had apps running in the background consuming memory because you closed the window and not the app?). Sure, Mac has the advantage of GPU acceleration and Expose - but that gap will be closed with Vista, and it's hard to see any practical benefit that can be added.

I don't forget about open applications anymore because I used OS9 in school, and in those days you had to remember that something was open if you wanted your computer to run quickly enough.

Stability isn't really an issue worth talking about any more (both OSes can be stable/unstable depending on how you treat them). And the other important area is security - which Windows has already made some progress on, and the big issue user access/rights should also be dealt with in Vista (in much the same way as OSX). Sure, the MS apps - IE, etc. - may still have issues, but since when did you *have* to use the MS application stack?

Which basically means that if Vista delivers it's promises, both it and OS X will do everything I would want / need from an OS for the foreseeable future.

Vista is still going to have a registry which is why, unless you never install anything, Windows slows down and needs to be reinstalled every six months or so. That's not something I'm willing to put up with. And while XP is much further along than '98 in terms of stability, it still has it's bad moments. Also, I mentioned IE because I do a lot of development and understand that Internet Explorer has not only halted web development for years, but it has also led to tons of developers staying in the dark with regard to current practices and standards. And those same developers produce the web pages we complain about not working in Firefox or Safari, or saying that we can't use their site because of being on a Mac.