Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Inside Apple's New MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Advice needed
Can someone help me with this i cant decide on which to get
Option 1. = 1924$
# 2.4GHz Intel Core i5
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display
Option 2. = 2000$
# 2.66GHz Intel Core i7
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display
Same price, one has the i7 with the matte screen being sacrificed, whereas the other has the matte finish, with the i5.
Im leaning more towards the i7 option since ill be getting a better processor. I have a laptop right now with the glossy and it hasnt been a big factor. Also is the high resolution going to make a big difference?
Can someone help me with this i cant decide on which to get
Option 1. = 1924$
# 2.4GHz Intel Core i5
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display
Option 2. = 2000$
# 2.66GHz Intel Core i7
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display
Same price, one has the i7 with the matte screen being sacrificed, whereas the other has the matte finish, with the i5.
Im leaning more towards the i7 option since ill be getting a better processor. I have a laptop right now with the glossy and it hasnt been a big factor. Also is the high resolution going to make a big difference?
If you run Photoshop, software IDE tools, or any other thing that uses lots of toolbars, palettes and windows - consider the high-res screen.
If your eyes aren't great, though, many things will be smaller on the high-res. (I have a T61p with a 15.4" 1920x1200 screen, don't have young eyes, but love to have all that screen real estate to work with.)
Also, consider the height. The standard screen is only 900 pixels high. If you're used to that height, you should be fine. If you're moving from a system with more vertical - it might bother you that the menu items and other stuff makes your working area seem smaller. (I had a 14" with a 1400x1050 display, and replaced it with one with a 14" 1440x900 display. I really noticed losing 150 vertical pixels.)
There's no "right answer" - it's just what works for you.
15-inch: 2.4GHz vs. 15-inch: 2.66GHz
15-inch: 2.4GHz vs. 15-inch: 2.66GHz
That is $400 difference between the 2 systems. Is there a huge noticeable difference in performance? I got 2 external HDD's. Which one would you get?
I currently have 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, so I guess both MacBook Pros above would be faster.
15-inch: 2.4GHz vs. 15-inch: 2.66GHz
That is $400 difference between the 2 systems. Is there a huge noticeable difference in performance? I got 2 external HDD's. Which one would you get?
I currently have 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 24" iMac, so I guess both MacBook Pros above would be faster.
Kinda like a blind date where the girl isn't as hot as your were hoping...
But her bigger friends turn up who have a bit more
HAHA!!! This just made my day
^
^
^
What he said. + will i notice a difference in dvd's? or ripped bluray movies? or will it just offer more real estate?
Thanks
USB 3.0 is absolutely pointless given that the actual data transfer rates of the fastest available hard drives (180-200 MB/s avg) and internet connections (maybe 20 MB/s) are WELL below USB 2.0.
I'm disappointed in these "brand new" MBP's. The fastest Core i7 is the 2.66GHz, and there is NO quad-core, and NO Core i7 Extreme option available. Now that's a joke. That's why Apple likes to hide the Intel CPU ID.
Worse, though, is the "options" for the NVIDIA dedicated VRAM. The highest one you can buy is the GT 330M. What? An Apple MacBook PRO has only 512MB and 48 processor cores (CUDA) as its HIGHEST option??? LOL
The LED screen is what, an RGB LED or no RGB??? I bet the latter is the case. WTF!??!? And the Core 2 Duo for the 13 inchers is just a slap in the face for those who need an ultraportable MacBook "Pro". Lame.
I guess the iPad and the iPhone is what keeps Cupertino busy these days. No time for any real improvements on any Mac line. Boo!
Worse, though, is the "options" for the NVIDIA dedicated VRAM. The highest one you can buy is the GT 330M. What? An Apple MacBook PRO has only 512MB and 48 processor cores (CUDA) as its HIGHEST option??? LOL
The LED screen is what, an RGB LED or no RGB??? I bet the latter is the case. WTF!??!? And the Core 2 Duo for the 13 inchers is just a slap in the face for those who need an ultraportable MacBook "Pro". Lame.
I guess the iPad and the iPhone is what keeps Cupertino busy these days. No time for any real improvements on any Mac line. Boo!
ok, yes... the plastic macbooks were crappy. you can't use that example any more. we are past the limitation where you can use those as an example of "build quality"
LOL. that is really funny. so... what does plastic do?
Not true, seeing as how many millions of them Apple sold. That system was only recently replaced. With yet another cheap plastic system.
Plus those systems are still available outside of Apple.
LOL. that is really funny. so... what does plastic do?
Well made plastic will stand up to every day abuse better than a hair thin piece of aluminum.
20 years of PC's and I've had enough...
I'd have to say I completely agree w/ Zadillo. I've been a dedicated PC user for almost 20 years and I've just recently purchased a Macbook Pro. I couldn't be more pleased. It just works, and works very well.
I fell into the "same specs" trap w/ my former laptop (A Toshiba Satellite) and within months the battery lasted less than a half hour per charge. It also ran incredibly hot and as a result made a ton of noise.
Aside from all that... The plastic frame creaks and the paint wore off incredibly quickly. Not to mention the computer was just plain ugly.
Sure, if you put this laptop side by side w/ a Mac of the same specs they might perform similar in a benchmark, but there is absolutely *no comparison* to the user experience / quality of these two machines.
I'll gladly pay the premium for the quality any day. Just the truth...
I'd have to say I completely agree w/ Zadillo. I've been a dedicated PC user for almost 20 years and I've just recently purchased a Macbook Pro. I couldn't be more pleased. It just works, and works very well.
I fell into the "same specs" trap w/ my former laptop (A Toshiba Satellite) and within months the battery lasted less than a half hour per charge. It also ran incredibly hot and as a result made a ton of noise.
Aside from all that... The plastic frame creaks and the paint wore off incredibly quickly. Not to mention the computer was just plain ugly.
Sure, if you put this laptop side by side w/ a Mac of the same specs they might perform similar in a benchmark, but there is absolutely *no comparison* to the user experience / quality of these two machines.
I'll gladly pay the premium for the quality any day. Just the truth...
ok, this is just nonsense.
STUCK at 16:10? STUCK at a far superior, larger resolution?
16:9 is SMALLER, yo... it's a trick of the panel makers to sell you cheaper, smaller screens and make you think they are better... cause they are "HD". really, really stupid.
why would ANYONE want 16:9 when 16:10 available? i'll take 1920x1200 all day long, while you scrunch into 1920x1080.
more pixels are better!
um... right. well-made being... thick. and no piece of aluminum on the macbook is "hair thin".
yes, that low-end macbook is still crappy. but that's not the equivalent of what you had. that's the MBP 13". so still... can't use that one.
but wait... if you love PLASTIC so much....
You don't know what you're talking about.
1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8Mb = 8 Megabits
USB 2.0 = 480 Mbps = 60MBps *theoretical* maximum throughput
Actual real-world maximums for USB 2.0 tend to be around 40MBps. That is much, much slower than almost every regular hard drive on the market, let alone the SSDs and other newer devices out there.
USB 2.0 is a bottleneck for modern systems, especially if you are transferring or dealing with large amounts of data (like HD movies).
Looks like a solid round of updates. The options are there for those who want to pay for them, but it seems like the low-end 15" Macbook Pro is the sweet spot (now having the HD graphics processor included). The battery life they're able to pump out of these babies is truly astounding (as I type this on a 3 yr old MBP that gets about 1.5 hours out of its original but replaceable battery). 8-9 hours is crazy!
On the other hand, I'm still not a fan of the newer trackpad and keyboard, nor having to pay an extra $150 for a matte screen (with the added bonus of better resolution). I'm personally not at the point of needing a new computer since Adobe CS4 runs pretty darn well on this machine, but someday when USB3 becomes ubiquitous and Apple has finally made the transition I may have to bite. I worry more now about the spat between Adobe and Apple; all that hardware isn't going to do much if Adobe stops making applications that need it!
Then again, maybe Apple or someone else will come along with their own creative suite of design applications to challenge Adobe. Hah, no, just kidding.
On the other hand, I'm still not a fan of the newer trackpad and keyboard, nor having to pay an extra $150 for a matte screen (with the added bonus of better resolution). I'm personally not at the point of needing a new computer since Adobe CS4 runs pretty darn well on this machine, but someday when USB3 becomes ubiquitous and Apple has finally made the transition I may have to bite. I worry more now about the spat between Adobe and Apple; all that hardware isn't going to do much if Adobe stops making applications that need it!
Then again, maybe Apple or someone else will come along with their own creative suite of design applications to challenge Adobe. Hah, no, just kidding.
ok, this is just nonsense.
STUCK at 16:10? STUCK at a far superior, larger resolution?
16:9 is SMALLER, yo... it's a trick of the panel makers to sell you cheaper, smaller screens and make you think they are better... cause they are "HD". really, really stupid.
why would ANYONE want 16:9 when 16:10 available? i'll take 1920x1200 all day long, while you scrunch into 1920x1080.
more pixels are better!
You do realize Apple recently changed their iMac screens from 16:10 to 16:9?
You do realize Apple recently changed their iMac screens from 16:10 to 16:9?
yeah, and it's balls. it's a trick, i tell you! a trick!
If you're doing such intensive tasks that a bump from core2 to i3 would be necessary then i think you shouldn't be looking at a 13" machine. Also, i think the i3 was not used because of licensing issues between Nvidia and Apple. They used Intel integrated and Nvidia dedicated which they could not do in the 13" due to lack of size.
ok, this is just nonsense.
STUCK at 16:10? STUCK at a far superior, larger resolution?
16:9 is SMALLER, yo... it's a trick of the panel makers to sell you cheaper, smaller screens and make you think they are better... cause they are "HD". really, really stupid.
why would ANYONE want 16:9 when 16:10 available? i'll take 1920x1200 all day long, while you scrunch into 1920x1080.
more pixels are better!
Yo, form factor has nothing to do with resolution. Of course you'll take 1920x1200 all day long, because you do not have much choice. However, with DELL and HP you could choose between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 (and many other choices) and have RGB LED backlit screen on top of it. Not to mention something like NVIDIA® Quadro FX 3800M Graphics with 1GB6 dedicated memory. You probably have not even heard of this one. Why would you? Apple does not offer this one even on Mac Pro