Inside Apple's New MacBook Pro

[oris]

sooooooo sad

These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

 

[charlien]

Oh My God!

I retired my black macbook and settled on the middle 15" model. What an incredibly nice machine.

 

[bozeefus]

ROTFLMAO. So you expect us to take you seriously when you say that we should use Clarkdale data to compare Arrandale performance since they have the same core? Did anyone explain to you that cache and memory system affects the performance?

Eidorian is an idiot. that's it

 

[mdavis]

Far superior larger resolution? 1440x900 is somehow "far superior"? How?



Yes they are cheaper to make. Because theres no sense in making non-standard screens that only a small number of people like, while everyone else would rather have 16x9.



Considering the industry, except Apple, moved away from 16x10 virtually overnight, I'd say everyone wants 16x9.

I have a 1920x1080 display right now. No 1920x1200 please. I don't want the black bars on my movies to look like they used to on CRT TVs.



Have you taken apart an aluminum unibody system? The bottom casing IS hair thin. It's about as thin as the aluminum face on the iPod classic. The casing on my iPad is thicker than the bottom pieces of my 13.3" aluminum MacBook.



I had two original plastic MacBooks (one I bought, second was a replacement), and that replacement system was replaced with the original aluminum unibody MacBook. Why two replacements? Poor case design on Apple's part. The aluminum unibody design is leaps and bounds better than their previous designs, but its still years behind what PC manufacturers can offer.



Well, then you haven't looked. Mobile Core 2 Quad showed up a long time ago. In 2008 actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Quad-Core_Notebook_processors

True quad core mobile Core i7 have been around for about 6 months now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors#Quad-Core_Mobile_processors

Heres a nice little Core i7 quad system http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114803 $899. $1300 less than the dual core Core i7 MBP.

Also, all of those quad core Core i7 mobile processors offer hyper threading as well, so you have 8 logical cores.

Who let this guy in?

 

[PoianaNana]

1. As far as I know. If there are changes, they are minor.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Officially, they only support 8 GB at this time- partly because 4 GB SODIMMS are the largest that are readily available. There have been a few times in the past when Apple said the limit is X GB and when larger DIMMs became available they worked. There have also been times when the limit was limited by the hardware. Sorry, I don't know which is the case here, but do you really expect to need more than 8 GB on a 13" laptop during the lifetime of that computer?
5. I doubt if you'll see this test any time soon. It would require someone who had access to 8 GB SODIMMs AND who was interested in testing them in a 13" laptop. I would think that anyone with access to those would want to test them in higher end hardware.

Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge!
Despite being a quite seasoned Windows-PC user, I'm a complete noob with Apple!!!
So thanks twice, for the info and for the patrience!
P.

 

[Frobozz]

Had I not just ordered an iPad, I would get either the high resolution 15" or the 17". Not sure which, but they would both be configured with the Core i7.

I'd save money on the SSD'd though.

You can get a screaming fast SSD in either 128GB with 220MB/s read 200MB/s write for $375 or less:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233087

Or the same spec in 256GB for $729:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233085

I'm curious what SSD's Apple is using. Anyone know? The two I mentioned above are Corsair and widely seen as top notch SSD.

 

[rps1972]

Glossy with matt "protective" film?

Has anyone here tried putting a matt film on a glossy MBP?

I just ordered the 17" i7, with a matt screen... but it doesn't look so cool with the alu frame around the screen as nice as the glossy does. So I wondered about using the glossy screen with a film over it... would look better and still not give me a headache (use the computer 10-12 hours a day).

Any experiences out there?
Any recommendations?

cheers,
Rob

 

[karlwig]

I think you're very confused.

The new 13" has a faster CPU, MUCH faster graphics, better memory subsystem, better battery life, all for the same price.

Of course I know this. First of all, to say it has "faster CPU" is a little misleading. What is it, like 0.2 Ghz for both models? Come on. More important, its still Core 2 Duo, which is now getting extremely old. So while its (very moderately) faster, its the same tech. That was my point.

I didnt know it had better memory subsystem (I dunno what that means) but it has 4gigs in the base model instead of 2. This is good, as is the increased battery life (perhaps the most important update feature)

From what Im hearing about the GPU, its supposed to be pretty underwhelming. I have no doubt it is faster than the 9400M, but that card is a joke (I have it in my uMBP).

The point of my post is that the tech advances have to be significant to warrant the same price. Here its not very significant of all.

On the 15 and 17, the tech advances seems much better with the i5 or i7 as standard across the line -- but here they increased the price too, so my point still stands.

Look, the point is not that Apple is offering excactly the same at the same price in the 13". Of course its better. It just doesnt get better as fast as it should, compared to the competition.

Of course this is all opinion, and we all have different ideas of how much something should improve every 6 or 12 months to warrant a certain price.

 

[Frobozz]

These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

Well, you could order the HP and have it break in 13 months.

No doubt Apple should offer cheaper prices and a wider gamut of BTO options. However, they have stellar build quality (overall.)

 

[karlwig]

No doubt Apple should offer cheaper prices and a wider gamut of BTO options. However, they have stellar build quality (overall.)

Agreed. This is also why I see no point in buying a plastic white Macbook for $200 less. Apple laptops are already that much more expensive than PCs, that you may just as well get the solid aluminium ones if youre going for the Apple experience.

Despite my little complaining about underwhelming specs in this thread, I have to say that I really love my 13" Macbook Pro. Apart from a running a rock-solid OS, almost the whole reason for this is how good it feels to use. I dont think I could never come back to a plastic laptop.

 

[oris]

Agreed. This is also why I see no point in buying a plastic white Macbook for $200 less. Apple laptops are already that much more expensive than PCs, that you may just as well get the solid aluminium ones if youre going for the Apple experience.

Despite my little complaining about underwhelming specs in this thread, I have to say that I really love my 13" Macbook Pro. Apart from a running a rock-solid OS, almost the whole reason for this is how good it feels to use. I dont think I could never come back to a plastic laptop.

I Hate plastic pcs!! but they have better options to fit your needs i need 1gb video card, and with apple its impossible

 

[Eidorian]

ROTFLMAO. So you expect us to take you seriously when you say that we should use Clarkdale data to compare Arrandale performance since they have the same core? Did anyone explain to you that cache and memory system affects the performance?

Eidorian is an idiot. that's it

Instead of insulting me you could prove to me why the performance would be different using the same DDR3-1066 RAM with the same amount of cache and at the same clock speed.

I already addressed those concerns and yet you still insult me.

 

[Indus]

Instead of insulting me you could prove to me why the performance would be different using the same DDR3-1066 RAM with the same amount of cache and at the same clock speed.

I already addressed those concerns and yet you still insult me.

I didn't insult you, but you've posted repeatedly insisting that the benchmarks listed were valid.

They are not, and no one cares that they could be 'more valid', if they were redone with appropriate 1033 memory and (somehow) with a 1MB reduction in cache size.

I don't have the hardware to redo it, and neither do you - I don't understand why you're so defensive about a benchmark that isn't really relevant?

 

[Eidorian]

I don't understand why you're so defensive about a benchmark that isn't really relevant?

This is Arrandale and Clarkdale.

 

[Indus]

This is Arrandale and Clarkdale.

Uuug, I know. Everyone does.


What part of "Different cache size, and different memory speeds means the comparison you defend isn't useful" do you not understand?

 

[Eidorian]

What part of "Different cache size, and different memory speeds means the comparison you defend isn't useful" do you not understand?

How is this still a concern?

 

[diamond.g]

Ok, either you didn't read the linked intel comparision or I'm missing something here - how does the word 'identical' manage to apply to different cache and memory controller speeds?

How would a performance comparison using the Clarkdale and the faster memory/larger cache not be worthless?

Because both are Nehalem technology that is what Eidorian is trying to say.

ROTFLMAO. So you expect us to take you seriously when you say that we should use Clarkdale data to compare Arrandale performance since they have the same core? Did anyone explain to you that cache and memory system affects the performance?

Interesting, from what I understand the L3 and memory speed don't affect the system as much as they did in the C2D days. Have there been benchmarksrealworld examples that show otherwise?

 

[175170]

Missing the woods for the trees are we. It just amazes me how all the apple fans continue to ignore the simple facts.
I'm not talking about the improvements in the 13" MBP. I was talking about the price difference between the base MBP13 and hte higher model.
The only difference between them is a 266mhz speed bump and 70gb worth of hdrive space.
Good luck paying 300$ for that!!!

All im saying is how can apple expect people to buy the high end 13". Even jobs cannot pull that off. They will ahve to make some more changes.

Ah, in that case, sorry, you're completely correct then. I agree with you.

As much as an Apple fan I am, I am not a fanboy. I have owned 4 iPhones, and am using a Pre now. In respects, it is much better than the iPhone.

 

[john123]

More important, its still Core 2 Duo, which is now getting extremely old.

Old does not mean bad.

These updates are a big disgrace
2199 for a 15 inch I7 mac with only 256MB video
You can get a hp 15 inch with the same specs for 1049 and 1gb of video card/hdmi/ and you can also add a blue ray if you want

I really expected to see something at least similar to the hp at apples price

But now, what wait another six months

So sad…

Apples always have been more expensive. Waiting another 6 months naively hoping for a big price drop would be foolish. Expecting a big price drop with these would have been equally foolish. If you want value, you buy from someone else (and use a different OS). It's really simple. I don't get why people are surprised about this.

 

[fingernagel]

expensive

Apple has always been expensive: yes! but comparing with Toshiba or Sony it is really hard to pay what they want for. That, for professional reason doesn't hold me away from buying an i7 17" 2.66Ghz with a antiglare screen and 7200rpm HD, since my actual model is an old 15" G4 from 2005.

Since I don't have the 3000 dollar (its hard to earn that much money down here in Mexico) I would like to go the refurbished way. My questions are:

1. Anyone know, how much time it takes to see the first refurbished i7 MacBook Pro's?

2. And is it possible to put some more RAM, antiglare display and a Spanish keyboard in it? (I don't see any option for that in the current refurbished products...)

 

[175170]

Apple has always been expensive: yes! but comparing with Toshiba or Sony it is really hard to pay what they want for. That, for professional reason doesn't hold me away from buying an i7 17" 2.66Ghz with a antiglare screen and 7200rpm HD, since my actual model is an old 15" G4 from 2005.

Since I don't have the 3000 dollar (its hard to earn that much money down here in Mexico) I would like to go the refurbished way. My questions are:

1. Anyone know, how much time it takes to see the first refurbished i7 MacBook Pro's?

2. And is it possible to put some more RAM, antiglare display and a Spanish keyboard in it? (I don't see any option for that in the current refurbished products...)

1. Probably a few weeks. Not sure about Mexico though.

2. If you buy it from Mexico's Apple Store, refurbished. As for the anti-glare display, probably not. RAM, just add it in yourself.

 

[anthonybsd]

Who let this guy in?

I must say his ramblings are the most moronic I've seen here in a while. The irony of his 16:9 comments is of course the fact that 99% of the movies out there will still have black bars on a 16:9 screen. I wonder if he'd jump onto 21:9 screens if he had a chance. Or better yet I expect him to start screaming "WTF APPLE FAIL" when it doesn't offer this ratio in a few years:
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f941.cfm

 

[fingernagel]

1. Probably a few weeks. Not sure about Mexico though.

2. If you buy it from Mexico's Apple Store, refurbished. As for the anti-glare display, probably not. RAM, just add it in yourself.

I will buy in the United States, down here in Mexico the same MacBook Pro costs like 700 dollars more.

In the United States is it possible to change the spechs in the refurbished shop? If yes, how?

 

[Eidorian]

I will buy in the United States, down here in Mexico the same MacBook Pro costs like 700 dollars more.

In the United States is it possible to change the spechs in the refurbished shop? If yes, how?

You are better off getting it stateside. You can't change the specifications of refurbished hardware. You can get lucky and get better hardware than what was listed. (More RAM, larger hard drive)

 

[wovel]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114803

Less than the MacBook price wise but more powerful than the top end MacBook Pro.

Of course you could duct tape an ipad to the macbook pro and it would still be smaller and lighter..

Care about what? Getting the MOST for my money? Am I really supposed to spend $1300 more on a weaker system just so it can weigh a little less, be a little thinner, and get battery life I'll never use in the real world?

Weight and thickness are a non-issue considering the system is being carried in a backpack.

Well then buy the toshiba, no need to post here. You essentially just said there is no reason for a portable computer to be portable, everything else you said is totally irrelevant.

It's not just you. Every sane person is missing (will be missing shortly) not only USB3 but also
- esata (which can be combined with a USB slot, hence no extra slot is needed)
- express card slot with 13" and 15" inch models (put an express card SD reader in it, if you wish to use that. If you don't wish that, put in something else you need - a hard drive, 3G modem, ...)
- bluray
- how about upgrading FW800 to FW3200 (the standard exists from 12/2006) (by the way, there is an FW version that uses rj45 (i.e. ethernet) connectors, thus could be used as a combined ethernet/FW port e.g. for MBAir)
- well, I guess that would be enough for the start

USB 3.0 is still not widely adopted and there are very few devices, by next year it will be common and stable and I am sure it will be in the mac laptops. No one is missing the express card slot, no one used it when it was there. eSata would be nice on iMacs and Minis, I am not sure it is the best solution for a laptop, at least last time I checked hot pluggable power over eSata support was fairly limited. The firewire upgrade would be nice,they should find a way to integrate 3200.