I'm sure there's an equal or more people owning MBP for more than 3-4 years than people owning PB back for 3-4 years in the old days. We just have much larger base of owners now. We're talking about a material culture that loves to spend money on new technologies even if it does not benefit them any more than the pervious toys they have.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CES 2010: Intel Officially Announces Core i7, i5, and i3 Chips Suitable for Apple Notebooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure there's an equal or more people owning MBP for more than 3-4 years than people owning PB back for 3-4 years in the old days. We just have much larger base of owners now. We're talking about a material culture that loves to spend money on new technologies even if it does not benefit them any more than the pervious toys they have.
It is my understanding the Core i5/i7 release was the "Tick" and the die shrink of the same is the "Tock".
So the next MacBookPro rev will have similar performance and features as the iMac, but have lower power consumption and a marginal speed boost. A really great feature would be an affordable SSD option. And a stable OS.
Rocketman
11-29% boost - and you expect applause!?.
Oy-oy-oy, what a revolution: 11 to 29 % performance boost! Will they ever cease to lionise the snail-like pace of Apple hardware evolution?
Will the logic boards in the upcoming MacBook Pros, too, go to pieces after 2 to 3 years of use, as they invariably do in the PowerBooks and MacBook Pros so far?
Will these "new" MacBook Pros, in spite of the Apple tradition, render flash without dropping frames and completely out-of-sync audio? I hope so, for otherwise to the hell with what has become of Apple, the New Micro$oft!
Three years ago I could never imagine I'd be remotely as disappointed in Apple as I am now.
Early benchmarks have shown performance boosts of 11-29% compared to the similarly clocked processors found in the MacBook Pro.
Article Link: CES 2010: Intel Officially Announces Core i7, i5, and i3 Chips Suitable for Apple Notebooks
Oy-oy-oy, what a revolution: 11 to 29 % performance boost! Will they ever cease to lionise the snail-like pace of Apple hardware evolution?
Will the logic boards in the upcoming MacBook Pros, too, go to pieces after 2 to 3 years of use, as they invariably do in the PowerBooks and MacBook Pros so far?
Will these "new" MacBook Pros, in spite of the Apple tradition, render flash without dropping frames and completely out-of-sync audio? I hope so, for otherwise to the hell with what has become of Apple, the New Micro$oft!
Three years ago I could never imagine I'd be remotely as disappointed in Apple as I am now.
You obviously were not around when Apple used the PPC chip. And Intel makes the CPU not Apple.
Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple's products. If you are very disappointed, you can feel free to go back to Windows. I wouldn't have a problem going back to Windows, especially with W7 release. I just might go back to Windows after my current MBP dies without warranty.
I am sure, your post (and of those of similar orientation and similar demands) is Mr. Jobs' Bible. That would explain a thing or two in Apple's modus operandi.
There's a lot of people who must have the latest new toy as soon as it comes out, whether they need it or not. It's their money so let them spend it on new toys if it make them happy. At least it means there are more nearly new second hand machines available for those who like to grab a bargain.
Very well put. Powermax offered me just shy of $1,000 for my G5 if I want to part-ex. 12 months ago they offered $1,600. Buy a 6-12 month old refurb and that makes for a nice discount.
Looking to buy
I'm new here, looking to buy a 13" MBP, What are the likely changes going to be apart from the i3/i5 processor ? Any exterior changes to the look of the MBP ?
Any help appreciated!
-Maceutiful
I'm new here, looking to buy a 13" MBP, What are the likely changes going to be apart from the i3/i5 processor ? Any exterior changes to the look of the MBP ?
Any help appreciated!
-Maceutiful
True...and in fact I work in the sound arena...but not with ProTools...I use Acid and SoundForge among others.
Buttttttt...I do this all on a desktop. And, the soundcard is what really provides the bulk of the power of what your sound software can and cannot do. The software checks to see what the soundcard is capable of doing...if the card doesn't support A,B, and C, the software simply doesn't give you that functionality.
Assuming your non-integrated soundcard works just fine with your software, CPUs do become important if you are going to push your software to its limits.
But again, we're talking consumer vs. professional here. Any pro is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on heavy equipment and redundancy. Consumers or music producers working at home with less budget will do just fine using a quad-core chip today as a dual-core from 3 years ago as a single core from 8 years ago. Seriously. Unless they are trying to run 32 or more tracks simultaneously with all sorts of software-created effects, etc...which doesn't sound like the average consumer or even averge home-based music consumer.
There's an exception to every rule. And yes, if we are talking about people using their laptop to do such music production, sure, faster chips are always appreciated on laptops because laptops typically are a few years behind in speed/performance than their desktop counterparts...regardless of how much money you have. Now, anyone who uses a laptop with a 15" or even 17" screen to do music production (other than for a fun hobby 1-2 hours a week) better have a darn good reason why they bought a laptop instead of a desktop (with more power, larger screens, and cheaper cost).I usually create music pieces with 10-15 tracks depending on what I am doing...all tracks are WAV so compression (Mp3) is already out of the picture. My 3 year old quad core 2.3GHz chip with 3GB memory and a few hundred gig SATA 7200RPM drive works fine and has for 3 years. Before that it was the same amount of RAM on the same OS with the same spec drive (probably smaller storage) with a single-core chip which also was 3 years old. So for 6+ years I've seen, in my daily and above-aver usage of this machine, 0 problems or reasons to upgrade. The only reason I did upgrade was because the machines were so cheap and came with new warranties and a few extra bells (faster dvd drive, more cabinet space for SATA drives,).
On average I buy a new pc every 3-4 years...mainly because the new ones come with extra bells and whistles that the old ones did not. Never have I needed to buy a new Mac or PC because the machine died. My mom's ancient 8+ year old WinXP pc with a Celeron chip still runs just fine these days with Youtube, iTunes, web surfing, Office, etc. But her usage is quite light. I've burned and ripped cds without a hitch as well as ran some other apps she doesn't run...that's why I state that on average for most consumers, chip speed over the last 10 years really hasn't been that much of reason to buy a new computer.
-Eric
Dear chap, I can't "go back to Windows" for I've never been there except for troubleshooting a friend's system. What I did find out in the process… well, it appears that except for a few deficiencies here-and-there its latest brainchild is by no means so much inferior to OS X. However, OS X is my thing - and I conceive no need [for Myself] to go to Windows.
Speaking of hardware, upon the other hand, I did initially refuse to believe that a friend's cheap and hideous Windows-operated tower, almost 5 years old, were incomparably more powerful than both my 4 year old PowerBooks and a year-and-a-half old MacBook dual-core Pro. And that very ugly tower had never a hardware problem! Did my Apples? Yes, one after the other!..
By the way, if I allowed myself the option you so kindly suggested, I would have by now. That doesn't, however, mean, that I'm willing to conform!
Yeah I hate 16:9 computer screens. I love my vertical space, and low end 16:9 "HD" screens are 1366x768. 768 vertical pixels blows, if you consider menu bars, tool bars, docks, task bars, etc, etc...
Sadly, I think Apple will play the follower game with regard to this, just like they did with the glossy screen crap a few years ago. I would expect the next refresh of MBP's to be 16:9 ratio screens
13" 1366x768
15" 1600x900
17" 1920x1080
Unlikely to be anything revolutionary:
Powerbook G4 (2001)
Powerbook G4 (2003)
Powerbook G4 (2005)
MacBook Pro (2006)
MacBook Pro (2009)
It's not that hard to believe, as of recent MBP's nVidia GPU failure, I had more hardware failures with Macs than with PCs. Just bad luck for me, I guess.
OK, i don't geek on all of this stuff (reminds me too much of my old day job
Back to not following the processors and all that.....
Apple is a much more superior company then any other company Intel deals with. It's only right to separate a bunch of average joe companies from Apple.
His comments sound normal to me.
And finally, the horrible flash performance is because of Adobe, not Apple. Anyway, 11-29% seems about average for Intel's chip refreshes. And one must remember that it's not normal to upgrade at every refresh. A 3-year old machine is going to be about 30-34% faster (only based on clockspeed). But there are several other advances as well, such as a faster bus speed and lower power consumption.
Face it, since the switch to Intel, those who upgrade annually have little incentive to do so anymore because the upgrades seem incremental (which they are). Too many people have the mindset that updates/refreshes must always bring about huge changes (a la the PPC days). It's maddening!
mmm, I'm waiting for the macbook pro update, hopefully i3/i5 processor, new graphics and mabye more ram. The new 13" is for me. 
I know many will disagree with me, but I hope for a higher res 13" screen than this.