Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors

[em.zarate]

notebookcheck's review of the SB GPU

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html
i probably wont be getting the 13" after all, too much of a stepdown for me

im indifferent towards win7 or OSX, but what i care about is decent hardware not just outside but inside as well.

maybe i should get the 15" instead or give the upcoming thinkpad edge a try

 

[Yebubbleman]

How is that larger than the Blade SSDs ? The MBA has a 256 GB option. So my point stands, the Blade SSDs are not necessarily offered in lesser capacity than standard sized SSDs something you were trying to say. There's nothing different about the Blade SSDs except the fact they aren't in a 2.5" casing.

Actually, 2.5" SSDs come in 512GB capacities as well. They cost an arm and a leg, but they exist and they're bigger than the 256GB (supposed) maximum in the blade SSD capacity. That said, there's no reason why you can't have two side by side to make 512GB.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

I think the big question for Apple is this:

"Should the ODD be ditched out or not?"

If yes a whole lot of free space will have to be filled with goodies.

If not then they'll have to stick with something slower.

I hope SuperDrive will be tossed to the garbage..

Apple isn't focusing on that issue as much as you'd think. Also, software and movies still are still primarily offered on optical disc. When that changes, THEN your fantasies of optical drive removal will be fulfilled. In the meantime, they could get rid of the hard drive bay just as easily, inconvenience NO ONE (at least not on the 13" machines on which this strategy is crucial) and use THAT space for "goodies".

For a couple of years Dell has used microSATA SSD blades in the Latitude XT2. This fits your decription - it's a drive with a standard µSATA connector, just minus the casing.

Other blade SSDs, like the ones used for years in the Asus eeePC and some other netbooks, connect through PCIe - rather than SATA. (The connector is a PCIe card like blade, rather than SATA "L" or "µ" connectors.)

The Toshiba "Blade X-gale" in the MBA looks like a stretched version of the Asus netbook blade. It appears to use a PCIe-like connector as well, but it looks like an mSATA connector rather than the µSATA connector on the Dell.

Here's a picture showing a "half-slim" blade SSD with a µSATA connector beside a blade SSD with the PCIe-like mini-SATA (mSATA) connector.

Yes, "mini-SATA" connectors are smaller than "micro-SATA" connectors.

What you have pictured there is not what's in the MacBook Air, though I doubt you needed me to tell you that. ;-)

Edit: Nevermind, the third picture IS of what's in the MacBook Air. Carry on. :-D

Half-slim SATA appears to be µSATA

Anand said it pretty well. mSATA looks like Mini PCIe but is electronically SATA.
mSATA seems to be getting more popular all the time as even Intel released their mSATA SSDs

http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/310series/overview.htm

Not a surprise though, why waste space with a casing while you can make it much, much smaller and still retain the same performance and capacity. I would say mSATA/caseless SSDs are the future, we'll be seeing more of them

At least in Apple portables. Other companies will hop on too, though I get the feeling that the 2.5" enclosure will be there sort of as a transitionary device for laptops and desktops without the mSATA slot for it.

LOL - collision. I added the half-slim/mini-SATA image before I saw that you clarified that point as well.

The Intel link that you gave says that the connector is literally a mini-PCIe connector, but with SATA signals on the pins - "Supporting SATA signals over a PCI Express* (PCIe) mini-connector".

By the way, has anyone seen confirmation that the Toshiba Blade X-gale is using the mSATA connector? Toshiba's website has little more than a press release on it.

Not sure what connection it is. Someone corrected me on one of the forums saying that it was mSATA, which is why I've been saying that it has it. But for all I know, it could be something entirely different.

notebookcheck's review of the SB GPU

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html
i probably wont be getting the 13" after all, too much of a stepdown for me

im indifferent towards win7 or OSX, but what i care about is decent hardware not just outside but inside as well.

maybe i should get the 15" instead or give the upcoming thinkpad edge a try

Honestly, that's probably why there won't be a 13" laptop branded as "MacBook Pro" in the future. Merge said computer with the white MacBook and call it the "MacBook" and then it's not such a bad thing for what it is.

As for getting either a ThinkPad Edge or a 15" MacBook Pro; both are solid choices. If you want to be running Mac OS X, get the 15" MacBook Pro. If you want to be running Windows 7, get the ThinkPad Edge. If you want to be running both, get the 15" MacBook Pro.

 

[lilo777]

Honestly, that's probably why there won't be a 13" laptop branded as "MacBook Pro" in the future. Merge said computer with the white MacBook and call it the "MacBook" and then it's not such a bad thing for what it is.

I would not be so sure. There is nothing "pro" about MacBook Pro models anyways so why set discrete graphics as a requirement?

 

[Hellhammer]

Actually, 2.5" SSDs come in 512GB capacities as well. They cost an arm and a leg, but they exist and they're bigger than the 256GB (supposed) maximum in the blade SSD capacity. That said, there's no reason why you can't have two side by side to make 512GB.

There are 64GB NAND chips. Eight of them (4 per side) would give you 512GB. Looks like they don't cost you an arm and a leg, more like arms and legs along with your head Like I said above, Crucial's C400 (25nm) brings 512GB to ~800$ which is hundreds less than the cheapest 512GB drives available at the moment. Other manufacturers should have them for even cheaper

 

[AidenShaw]

What else would it be?

It wouldn't be the first time that Apple adopted a non-standard connector, now would it?

It's not Mini PCIe if that's what you want to know (the SSD is reported under Serial-ATA section in my MBA).

That's reasonable proof that it's mSATA, as long as it is using the standard motherboard SATA controller (in theory, a mini-PCIe card could contain both the disk and its own SATA controller, and would also show up as SATA).

For what it's worth, the blade SSD in the Asus netbook predates the mSATA spec. It actually uses the miniPCIe connector, but routes PATA signals over the pins. The disk shows up on an IDE channel on the ICH7.

 

[Hellhammer]

That's reasonable proof that it's mSATA, as long as it is using the standard motherboard SATA controller (in theory, a mini-PCIe card could contain both the disk and its own SATA controller, and would also show up as SATA).

It's connected to NVidia MCP89 ACHI so it should be connected to the motherboard SATA (for the record, my 24" iMac has MCP79 so it shouldn't be a PCIe card). Also, in theory, if it was a PCIe card, shouldn't it then be seen in the PCIe-cards section as well?

Doesn't really matter though, in any case the SATA 3Gb/s would be the bottleneck (though with Apple's SSDs, the SSD is the bottleneck)

 

[Yebubbleman]

I would not be so sure. There is nothing "pro" about MacBook Pro models anyways so why set discrete graphics as a requirement?

Nothing "Pro" by our standards, but by Apple's, it's typically a FireWire 800 port, backlit keyboard, and the Aluminum; prior to the 13" Pro, discrete graphics WAS one of those differentiators or "requirements". And really, it's not a requirement, but to see a "MacBook Pro" with an IGP made by Intel that is worse than the GeForce 320M would be a clear embarrassment and would greatly anger a fair amount of customers of that machine...almost as much as if Apple continued to use the Core 2 Duo processor. I feel like I've repeated this argument over a dozen times. Sure, it may not end up panning out, but given that this isn't the first time the company had a 13"/12" laptop in their "Pro" line and then didn't due to it not fitting in with the future of the "Pro" and "Consumer" laptop lines, I don't think it far fetched for history to repeat itself here.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's connected to NVidia MCP89 ACHI so it should be connected to the motherboard SATA (for the record, my 24" iMac has MCP79 so it shouldn't be a PCIe card). Also, in theory, if it was a PCIe card, shouldn't it then be seen in the PCIe-cards section as well?

I think that's what I said.

As far as a "PCIe card", it depends. Many devices, both in the chipset and soldered to the motherboard, are actually using PCIe even though they aren't separate "cards". Even the Intel integrated graphics is a PCIe device. I'm not sure that anything in the PCI space distinguishes a removeable card from from an embedded device - but of course a utility aware of which PCIe lanes are routed to card slots could make that distinction.

For example, my Asus netbook reports:

 Bus 0 (PCI Express), Device Number 2, Device Function 1
 Vendor 8086h Intel Corporation
 Device 27A6h [B]Mobile 945GM/GU Express Integrated Graphics Controller[/B]
 Command 0006h (Memory Access, BusMaster)
 Status 0090h (Has Capabilities List, Supports Back-To-Back Trans., Fast Timing)...


 Bus 0 (PCI Express), Device Number 31, Device Function 2
 Vendor 8086h Intel Corporation
 Device 27C4h 82801GBM/GHM (ICH7-M Family) [B]Serial ATA Storage Controller[/B] 
 Command 0005h (I/O Access, BusMaster)
 Status 02B0h (Has Capabilities List, Supports 66MHz, Supports Back-To-Back Trans., Medium Timing)
 Revision 02h, Header Type 00h, Bus Latency Timer 00h
 Self test 00h (Self test not supported)
 PCI Class Storage, type IDE (ATA)
 PCI EIDE Controller Features :
   BusMaster EIDE is supported
   Primary   Channel is at I/O Port 01F0h and IRQ 14
   Secondary Channel is at I/O Port 0170h and IRQ 15
 Subsystem ID 830F1043h Unknown
 Subsystem Vendor 1043h ASUSTeK Computer Inc
 Address 0 is an I/O Port : 00000000h
 Address 1 is an I/O Port : 00000000h
 Address 2 is an I/O Port : 00000000h
 Address 3 is an I/O Port : 00000000h
 Address 4 is an I/O Port : 0000FFA0h

Windows Device Manager doesn't distinguish "cards" from integrated PCIe devices - it does point out categories like "storage controllers". So, if the mini-PCIe SSD really was a PCIe device with a controller as well as the disk - I'd see an extra storage controller in the list. (I don't, but I do see disks on the IDE channels of the SATA controller.)

 

[Red33m]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

I would not be so sure. There is nothing "pro" about MacBook Pro models anyways so why set discrete graphics as a requirement?

Nothing "Pro" by our standards, but by Apple's, it's typically a FireWire 800 port, backlit keyboard, and the Aluminum; prior to the 13" Pro, discrete graphics WAS one of those differentiators or "requirements". And really, it's not a requirement, but to see a "MacBook Pro" with an IGP made by Intel that is worse than the GeForce 320M would be a clear embarrassment and would greatly anger a fair amount of customers of that machine...almost as much as if Apple continued to use the Core 2 Duo processor. I feel like I've repeated this argument over a dozen times. Sure, it may not end up panning out, but given that this isn't the first time the company had a 13"/12" laptop in their "Pro" line and then didn't due to it not fitting in with the future of the "Pro" and "Consumer" laptop lines, I don't think it far fetched for history to repeat itself here.

No offense guys but you really seem to think like PC users.

What Apple is trying to prove for such a long time is that the OS is far more important than the computer tech specs.

I mean look at the 13" MBP. Sure the C2D is outdated for a long time but check out the reviews or even use it for your self. It is darn fast..why? Because each and every piece is combined so if works in harmony with the other one. So as a result a MBP 13" can run Pro Apps like Photoshop pretty well.

I can't imagine how well a MBP 17" or 15" would run it.

And don't start me with games. Apple knows well that the majority of its customers buy Mac not for games but for everyday use or actual Pro use and since it can do that real well with the specs it already has why bump up the price with even more expensive tech? The price is already pretty high

Think dammit think!

 

[John.B]

Apple isn't focusing on that issue as much as you'd think. Also, software and movies still are still primarily offered on optical disc. When that changes, THEN your fantasies of optical drive removal will be fulfilled.

Apple Releases Mac OS X 10.6.6 and Launches Mac App Store

 

[Nikonian]

Honestly, any Mac without a dedicated GPU should not carry the Pro name. Whats the point of the Pro name without it?

Your money.

Exactly. I've been saying this for months. Mac Book Pros are supposed to be tailored to power users. Designers and the like who need more than 13" of screen real estate and a dedicated graphics card.

The hardware speaks what Apple's intentions are for this machine.

The 13" macbook pro is for people whose usage type and style dictate they should've have bought a macbook, but want to put their nose in the air and say that they have aluminum macbook pro.

Bottom line, there is nothing "Pro" about the macbook pros, compared to their PC counterparts. And don't give me that "It's more about the OS than the hardware" bull because some of us make a living off of the speed of our mobile macs.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Apple Releases Mac OS X 10.6.6 and Launches Mac App Store

Oh yeah, because I can totally download Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Quicken, and the like. Oh wait, I can't, because the major players aren't even on-board with the Mac App Store yet. The fact that the Mac App Store is out means nothing if those key apps aren't on there.

Similarly, even if they were on there, then what 7GB apps like StarCraft II? You mean to tell me that it makes more sense to spend all day downloading that one program from the Internet? Or, more realistically forego my optical drive or force me to wirelessly piggyback to my shared optical drive over the network to install it when doing so from the local optical drive would be much faster? Come on.

Don't even get me started on multi-DVD installations like Final Cut Studio. Oh what's that you say? MacBook Air Superdrive? Make me use an external device on something that's supposed to be A PORTABLE? No thanks, just because there are MacBook Air customers doesn't mean that customers of every other MacBook line are one of them.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)



No offense guys but you really seem to think like PC users.

No offense man, but that may be the single most toolish thing I've ever seen written, let alone by a Mac user on a Mac thread, and that's another Mac fanboy telling you that.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)What Apple is trying to prove for such a long time is that the OS is far more important than the computer tech specs.

Were we back on PowerPC and, therefore, using an entirely different architecture than the rest of the industry, I'd be tempted to agree with you. That said, Apple doesn't think itself a software company, and for the most part it isn't. Given that fact, no kidding they want us all to focus on OS X. Were it not for OS X, we wouldn't be shelling out all this money when we could get the same specs on more inexpensive hardware. But make no mistake, Apple is a hardware company and what they charge $1800 for is slower than what other reputable brands like Asus charge $1000 for.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)I mean look at the 13" MBP. Sure the C2D is outdated for a long time but check out the reviews or even use it for your self. It is darn fast..why? Because each and every piece is combined so if works in harmony with the other one. So as a result a MBP 13" can run Pro Apps like Photoshop pretty well.

I can't imagine how well a MBP 17" or 15" would run it.

No, I take it back, THIS is the single most toolish thing I've ever read by a Mac user on a Mac thread. It's fast because it's a better operating system. Period. It runs more stable than other OSes because there are only so many drivers as there are only so many Apple machines running the OS; as a result there are way fewer driver combinations and with most machines having a majority of the system components on the logic board, that means it is even easier to load the right drivers from the get-go and never have to worry about 'em again. That's it. Nothing special. Nothing iPad-Magical about it.

You also go against your own point; of course a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro would be able to best the performance of a 13". That's because IT HAS BETTER SPECS! I'm sorry, too PC for you?

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)And don't start me with games. Apple knows well that the majority of its customers buy Mac not for games but for everyday use or actual Pro use and since it can do that real well with the specs it already has why bump up the price with even more expensive tech? The price is already pretty high

Uh, what if I only want one computer and I want to both game and video edit. Apple's answer is Boot Camp, and with Steam for Mac and the Mac App Store, we may see an OS X-side surge of gaming. As for your notion of not bumping the price with more expensive tech, I don't want my only Apple-sanctioned entry into Mac OS X to be from an EVEN MORE outdated piece of hardware. Technology evolves, Apple isn't magically immune to that.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)Think dammit think!

You might want to cut down on the Apple Kool-Aid (as you appear to be overdoing it) so you can take your own advice and have logical discussions with the rest of us Apple Fanboys on this stuff.

 

[Eidorian]

I might be willing to part with ~$1,000 for a fancy new Lenovo or Dell/Alienware just to play Bad Company 2 on the road. nVidia Optimus is making a strong showing alongside Sandy Bridge. A mobile quad core might not be that bad of an idea.

Ofice 2011 is on the block as well. The last copy for Windows that I have is Office 2003.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I might be willing to part with ~$1,000 for a fancy new Lenovo or Dell/Alienware just to play Bad Company 2 on the road. nVidia Optimus is making a strong showing alongside Sandy Bridge. A mobile quad core might not be that bad of an idea.

Ofice 2011 is on the block as well. The last copy for Windows that I have is Office 2003.

You're not missing much, 2007 was terrible from what I heard. I know nothing about 2010. 2011, which is only for Mac, is apparently better than 2008, though it's not hard to pull that off.

 

[Eidorian]

You're not missing much, 2007 was terrible from what I heard. I know nothing about 2010. 2011, which is only for Mac, is apparently better than 2008, though it's not hard to pull that off.

2008 on Mac is fine for what I do. I just want to update my Windows copy of Office to avoid some annoying compatibility messages.

 

[John.B]

Apple has diluted the adjective "Pro" to mean little more than "something shiny to show off at Starbucks".

The 13" macbook pro is for people whose usage type and style dictate they should've have bought a macbook, but want to put their nose in the air and say that they have aluminum macbook pro.

As has been pointed out candidly elsewhere (including in this very thread):

• 13" MB: Lacks FireWire, 2GB RAM (up to 4GB), polycarbonate case, 10 hour battery.
• 13" MBA: Lacks FireWire, 2GB RAM (up to 4GB CTO), slower CPUs, SSD only, higher res screen (e.g. smaller pixels), unibody aluminum case, no optical drive, no IR.
• 13" MBP: Has FireWire, 4GB RAM (up to 8GB) unibody aluminum case, backlit keyboard, 10 hour battery.

But why would you care whether a 13" MBP suits someone else? If you really need a 15" or 17" MBP, then buy that, but the reality is that --aesthetics aside -- the $1199 13" MBP (Firewire, stock 4GB RAM) is a better deal for a lot of people over the $999 13" MB (no FireWire, stock 2GB RAM), esp. if FireWire or a backlit keyboard are critically important.

Does it really ruin your day that someone may be perfectly happy with the tradeoff of a marginally-slower-than-i3 C2D processor with a much-better-than-Intel-HDGraphics 320M plus 10 hour battery life? Does that mean they are "sticking their nose in the air"?

Honestly, I don't get this need for you (and Aiden, of all people) to brand everyone who has or wants a 13" MBP with this label like they are some sort of Starbucks showoff? Stereotype much?

 

[Yebubbleman]

As has been pointed out candidly elsewhere (including in this very thread):

• 13" MB: Lacks FireWire, 2GB RAM (up to 4GB), polycarbonate case, 10 hour battery.
• 13" MBA: Lacks FireWire, 2GB RAM (up to 4GB CTO), slower CPUs, SSD only, higher res screen (e.g. smaller pixels), unibody aluminum case, no optical drive, no IR.
• 13" MBP: Has FireWire, 4GB RAM (up to 8GB) unibody aluminum case, backlit keyboard, 10 hour battery.

But why would you care whether a 13" MBP suits someone else? If you really need a 15" or 17" MBP, then buy that, but the reality is that --aesthetics aside -- the $1199 13" MBP (Firewire, stock 4GB RAM) is a better deal for a lot of people over the $999 13" MB (no FireWire, stock 2GB RAM), esp. if FireWire or a backlit keyboard are critically important.

Does it really ruin your day that someone may be perfectly happy with the tradeoff of a marginally-slower-than-i3 C2D processor with a much-better-than-Intel-HDGraphics 320M plus 10 hour battery life? Does that mean they are "sticking their nose in the air"?

Honestly, I don't get this need for you (and Aiden, of all people) to brand everyone who has or wants a 13" MBP with this label like they are some sort of Starbucks showoff? Stereotype much?

The market audience of the 13" MacBook Pro tends to fall into two camps. Those who buy it primarily for aesthetic appeal, and those who buy it because they have a specific need for a feature not present in the white MacBook, but either can't afford or don't need a 15" MacBook Pro. For the former camp, that stereotype is pretty accurate. For the latter, it sucks that (a) we can't have those features on the $999 computer and/or (b) we can't have the $1199 laptop be better than it is, especially for that cost. The 13" MacBook Pro is really the only of the four that use the Core 2 Duo and the 320M that, for what it is and for the cost, badly needs to be more than that. Then again, that's only for one of the two aforementioned camps of customers of that machine. The other camp could care less.

This is coming from someone whose favorite currently shipping Mac is the 13" MacBook Pro.

 

[AidenShaw]

Misquote much?

Honestly, I don't get this need for you (and Aiden, of all people) to brand everyone who has or wants a 13" MBP with this label like they are some sort of Starbucks showoff? Stereotype much?

Where did I say "everyone"? Or even imply it?

I said "Apple has diluted the adjective 'Pro' to mean little more than 'something shiny to show off at Starbucks'".

Several people commented in agreement with me - "Pro" at Apple means "shiny aluminum".

Before you attack people, at least get the quotes correct.

 

[Red33m]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

You must have misunderstood my points. Of course MBP 13" and all Macs run better because of the perfect combination of hardware and software. And I didn't bump on my own point. It is logic for the 17" to run faster than the 13" because it has better specs. I just thought you were going to get it and I didn't need to explain nothing further. I just wanted to focus on the importance of the OS quality that's all.

Also..I repeat once again for you to clear your mind.

Apple wants to make machines that work fast,stable and are beautifully engineered and designed. They don't focus only on the hardware like many other companies do. FAST HARDWARE ARE USELESS ON A BAD OS. This is how they think.

I really keep thinking that you are too short sighted by focusing on the hardware only. But that is just me. I just want a fast computer to do my job easily. I am not a fanboy. Fanboy is one who buys the new product by the time it is released even if he has no need of acting so.

You do know a lot more about computers than me and that is the think that doesn't let you see the facts exactly because you focus on the wrong side. The hardware.

P.S. Apple spent more time thinking about how to make this invisible light on the front of the MBP than Asus spent on designing the whole computer. This is why Apple is too darn expensive. Because good engineering costs more.

 

[Hellhammer]

Ofice 2011 is on the block as well. The last copy for Windows that I have is Office 2003.

Office 2010 has been great from what I've heard from people I know. My parents use it everyday and it's been rock solid for them, especially now that it's not beta anymore (beta was in English which they disliked). I've tried it as well and it's improvement over the Office 2007. Much quicker.

Try the trial

 

[Eidorian]

Office 2010 has been great from what I've heard from people I know. My parents use it everyday and it's been rock solid for them, especially now that it's not beta anymore (beta was in English which they disliked). I've tried it as well and it's improvement over the Office 2007. Much quicker.

Try the trial

I did try the trial. It's also deployed to the staff computers at work.

 

[John.B]

Where did I say "everyone"? Or even imply it?

I said "Apple has diluted the adjective 'Pro' to mean little more than 'something shiny to show off at Starbucks'".

Several people commented in agreement with me - "Pro" at Apple means "shiny aluminum".

Before you attack people, at least get the quotes correct.

This:

Apple has diluted the adjective "Pro" to mean little more than "something shiny to show off at Starbucks".

And I think I pointed out specific cases where that's blindly stereotyping the people (like me) who own them. As a photographer and musician, I have to have FW and the 13" MBP is obviously the smallest form factor to get there.

 

[AidenShaw]

This:

I was referring to all MacBook Pros, not just the 13" as you are trying to read it.

 

[Red33m]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

Some architects in my country have the cash to pay and buy MBP 17 inchers and none cares about the processors and the IGP or the GPU and the FireWire. They just need a tough computer to run Autocad so they are able to create. And they keep their Macs until they break. These guys are Pros. The other one who change their laptops everytime a new Mac comes out are just possers with cash that seek happiness in the wrong place.

But at the same time Apple needs some folks to unthoughtfully spend their money on Apple products that they not need because this is how Apple makes profit.

Conclusion: There are 2 kinds of Mac users. The ones who think and use their computers the way they should. These are the Pros. And the other ones who spend money on Apple products just because they are shinny. These are the fanboys. Luckily for Apple there are a lot of fanboys out there.

This is how it is.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You must have misunderstood my points. Of course MBP 13" and all Macs run better because of the perfect combination of hardware and software. And I didn't bump on my own point. It is logic for the 17" to run faster than the 13" because it has better specs. I just thought you were going to get it and I didn't need to explain nothing further. I just wanted to focus on the importance of the OS quality that's all.

You needn't spend time telling me how rad the OS is. If I didn't agree with you, I'd be buying an i7 laptop for the cost of a white MacBook, maybe less.

Also..I repeat once again for you to clear your mind.

Apple wants to make machines that work fast,stable and are beautifully engineered and designed. They don't focus only on the hardware like many other companies do. FAST HARDWARE ARE USELESS ON A BAD OS. This is how they think.

See, this is why I call you a fanboy. Because Fanboys don't just buy new things because they can. They also have zealous loyalty to what it is that they're fans of. And to put that much faith and emphasis into Apple's engineering to the point where you discount spec updates is either you being naive or zealously loyal. To say that the OS makes ALL of the difference is either naive or zealously loyal as well. I'm sorry. Either way, it's a somewhat ignorant position. Apple's machines could afford to be faster. Sure, the software is fast. And sure it goes well with the hardware. But it could always be better. And to suggest the stunting of its growth because it's plenty fast is just downright naive.

I really keep thinking that you are too short sighted by focusing on the hardware only. But that is just me. I just want a fast computer to do my job easily. I am not a fanboy. Fanboy is one who buys the new product by the time it is released even if he has no need of acting so.

Incomplete definition of what a fanboy is, see above. You still qualify given your posts on these forums.

You do know a lot more about computers than me and that is the think that doesn't let you see the facts exactly because you focus on the wrong side. The hardware.

The software is nothing without hardware to run it. Snow Leopard's release is a testament to that as future features will require future hardware. Advances in features under the hood are just as important, if not more important, than the OS, despite the fact that the OS is the reason why we use the hardware. Apple sees itself as a hardware company, which is no different than Asus, Dell, Lenovo, HP, Toshiba or any of the others. Apple lures people in by being the only hardware manufacturer to ship a personal computer with a user-friendly alternative to Windows, let alone the only manufacturer to **** THEIR user-friendly alternative to Windows.

.S. Apple spent more time thinking about how to make this invisible light on the front of the MBP than Asus spent on designing the whole computer. This is why Apple is too darn expensive. Because good engineering costs more.

Uh, you clearly don't know much about Asus then. Good engineering does cost more. But their engineering really isn't THAT much better than the competition. Unibody and battery advances I'll grant. But otherwise, they're all using boards manufactured by Foxconn, just like the rest of the industry.