Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Evidence for New MacBook Pros

HD screens on MacBook Pro

What brand and model?
Click to expand...

There's loads to be honest. An example is the base mode for the Dell Precision M4300. Even before adding extras it has an HD screen, faster HardDrive (7200rpm), same memory, same chip etc etc. About £400 cheaper.

I like Apple's stuff, and will pay a bit extra for good build quality and, of course, Mac OS X. But things have moved on, and Apple aren't moving with them.
 
lucky3killer said:
ASUS G1S-A1
Click to expand...

I think the G1 has a quite dull screen, nothing special.

insane100 said:
There's loads to be honest. An example is the base mode for the Dell Precision M4300. Even before adding extras it has an HD screen, faster HardDrive (7200rpm), same memory, same chip etc etc. About £400 cheaper.

I like Apple's stuff, and will pay a bit extra for good build quality and, of course, Mac OS X. But things have moved on, and Apple aren't moving with them.
Click to expand...

The 15.4" 1680x1050 notebook displays I saw so far from Asus, Samsung, Fujitsu and so on were quite dark. I don't need a high resolution panel if it's looking like a 15 year old passive LCD screen as soon as I step outside.
 
lucky3killer said:
No, it's not true.

I had used in real one and screen looks fine to me.

Remember, MacBook and MacBook Pro are made by ASUS, Apple asked ASUS to make it for Apple.
Click to expand...

Not anymore, the current generation is made by Foxconn.

The G2 has a great dual lamp screen but the G1 is as bad as a Vaio AR51J screen.
 
Fumes said:
All I have to say:

PowerBook G4 550 Mhz - no combo drive 20gb HD.

I can wait:)
Click to expand...

Holy smoke! You even beat my poorest friends! May I ask what it is, exactly, that you're waiting for? Jesus' second coming???
 
ageha said:
Not anymore, the current generation is made by Foxconn.

The G2 has a great dual lamp screen but the G1 is as bad as a Vaio AR51J screen.
Click to expand...

Wait, if you said that you think about G1 has dull screen.

It's not to me, mine is fine, plus review from notebook review don't mention that, G1 screen are fine to me.
 
lucky3killer said:
Wait, if you said that you think about G1 has dull screen.

It's not to me, mine is fine, plus review from notebook review don't mention that, G1 screen are fine to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's okay but it cannot compete to the G2 or the AR51M. It's just an average screen.
 
insane100 said:
ageha



Thanks for comment, but what do you mean by too much? Legibility? It's worth noting that the 17" has an HD option (1920x1200) which is the same jump up, albeit in a larger model. It's very legible, clean and crisp. Although Mac OS doesn't let you tinker with the system font sizes, so it could be an issue for some.

I also feel 1440x900 is just too old. As noted, many PC manufacturers are shipping 15" laptops with 1680x1050. I find the 1440x900 just too cramped for anything with palette options, like PhotoShop.
Click to expand...

Many PC manufacturers are also shipping 15.4" notebooks with 1280x800 displays. There is no standard for them and I wouldn't regard 1440x900 as old so much as not the highest end. I'd be suprised if the 15" MBPs don't move to 1680x1050 this year though.
 
petercooper said:
Can someone explain why so many people seem to be clamoring for more video RAM? I have 128MB in my PC (which I play games on) and it runs things like Unreal Tournament 3 at high frame rates at the full res on that machine (1680x1050). On a 15" MacBook Pro, which you're highly unlikely to be playing games on anyway, at a resolution of 1440x900, why would you need 256 (let alone 512) megabytes of VRAM?

I'm not asking this as a "you guys are crazy" type thing, but I'm genuinely interested. There's clearly a demand, but I don't get what it's based around. Even 512 in regular gaming PCs seems to be of little use compared to 256 unless you're playing ultra high end stuff, and that's not stuff for the portable market anyway.
Click to expand...
Hmm, you ask a very good question. See below.

AidenShaw said:
In other words, the "eye candy" that you see needs more graphics memory than your full screen 3D game. Couple that with the common use of multiple large displays, and you often run into situations where 256 MiB is either slow or forces the OS to disable certain features.
Click to expand...
Your response was going pretty well until you mentioned using more memory than a full screen game.

See what some people fail to realize is that all the textures that are on screen have to be stored somewhere*. If you store it on the VRAM it loads faster (22.4 GB/s vs 6.4 GB/s). The more VRAM you have the more (and better looking) textures can you store.
Something people can do is enable AA and AF. You don't need to run games at uber high resolutions to make AA and AF useful. Try running some of your existing games at a little lower resolution, but with higher AA and AF. On older games 8xAA and 16xAF can be quite nice. Newer games may only be playable with 2 or 4xAA and 8 or 16XAF. AF removes the line that is seen where textures transition from high resolution to lower resolution. AA helps hide the stair step effect that is present on texture edges. The AA samples and the AF samples require even more VRAM.


I personally like the Hardocp way of reviewing GPU's because they go for a "how high can I turn everything up and still have a playable game" standpoint. Not the I need 300+FPS in *insert whatever game here* standpoint. See Crysis bench between 3870X2 and 8800GTX for example.

*Actually everything you see on the screen is actually stored in VRAM, it just turns out that textures take up the most space.
 
sdds said:
Holy smoke! You even beat my poorest friends! May I ask what it is, exactly, that you're waiting for? Jesus' second coming???
Click to expand...

Pentium II 500Mhz, 12GB hdd, 256MB memory, broken CD-ROM, yellowish screen.. I can wait too :)

I can has cookie please?
 
The 15.4" 1680x1050 notebook displays I saw so far from Asus, Samsung, Fujitsu and so on were quite dark. I don't need a high resolution panel if it's looking like a 15 year old passive LCD screen as soon as I step outside.
Click to expand...

This is missing the point, MBP's ain't cheap, and at that price I expect an HD screen and good quality. The 17" HD doesn't seem poor quality. In other words, this doesn't really answer the question posed: aren't Apple's MBP offerings simply too expensive for what's on offer?
 
Many PC manufacturers are also shipping 15.4" notebooks with 1280x800 displays. There is no standard for them and I wouldn't regard 1440x900 as old so much as not the highest end. I'd be suprised if the 15" MBPs don't move to 1680x1050 this year though.
Click to expand...

I partially agree, however MBP's are pitched as high-end, and Apple also produce 'consumer' models with 1280x800. I do view a 'professional' laptop, geared at photographers, designers, film makers and others, at 1440x900 as behind the times.
 
insane100 said:
I partially agree, however MBP's are pitched as high-end, and Apple also produce 'consumer' models with 1280x800. I do view a 'professional' laptop, geared at photographers, designers, film makers and others, at 1440x900 as behind the times.
Click to expand...

At least "film makers" would never use an Apple 6Bit TN panels for color sensitive work. That would lead into a nightmare. I'm still surprised people really believe Apple displays are that good. :)
 
ageha said:
I think 1680x1050 is too much for a 15.4 inch display and it would also block more light.
Click to expand...

I currently have a 15.4" Dell notebook with a 1900x1200 display. It is beautiful. The 15.4" need to be at least 1680x1050 before I buy it.
 
Well, You just better off to use 1280 x 800 or 1440 x 900 as native resolution on PC laptop if you want able to play games at native resolution and mobile graphic chipet isn't powerful so enough.
 
lucky3killer said:
Well, You just better off to use 1280 x 800 or 1440 x 900 as native resolution on PC laptop if you want able to play games at native resolution and mobile graphic chipet isn't powerful so enough.
Click to expand...

I use my computer for school and work. I don't play games except the ones that come with Vista
 
akadmon said:
Huh?:confused: I just checked BB.com and the prices are unchanged.
Click to expand...

bestbuy.CA... not COM :D
and Futureshop.ca

Today (Thursday Jan 31st) The prices on Futurshop.ca have gone back to normal and Bestbuy.ca rebate shrunk by 100$.... they usually do their updates on Fridays... I'll check if the rebates come back.!!!
 
akadmon said:
Fresh off the presses:

http://www.9to5mac.com/new-macbook-pro-2008-324234534

EDIT:
Move along folks. Just noticed it's nothing more than a reference to this thread:eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you missed one key tidbit in that news:
"Also we've been hearing stories from retailers that new SKU's for MacBook Pros are hitting the streets (anyone care to elaborate?)"

A couple of days more perharps? Darn it, release it already!

-Ad
 
mellow2bits said:
ooohhwww... I just can not let this one pass!
Speaking of spelling: don't (do not) you mean 'their' in stead of 'there'?

OK (Okay) that was cheap. But it felt good, though ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, I'll bet it DID feel good... that was a test to see if anyone was reading my posts !!!

You passed.... :)

back on topic..... NOW I WANT A NEW MACBOOK PRO !!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back