MacBook Pros Trickling In

[unten44]

Just out of interest what made you go for the higher spec $300 for another 160Mhz seems quite alot.

Part of me figured that if I was one of the "first in line" to order a 2.16ghz model, then I might get this CTO order faster than competing with all the 1.83 and 2.0 ghz orders. I might have been right since my girl friend's 1.83 ghz model was ordered at the same time as mine and her's still has a Feb 28th ship date.

Another part of me just wanted the faster processor since I already shelled out the $$$ for the max 2gb of ram and max 120gb hard drive. (Plus it might be worth more on eBay later!)

The "kid in me" convinced the "rational part of me" with this lame excuse: I figured that it's not just one processor core that gets a 160mhz speed boost. It's two.

 

[Heb1228]

I'm pretty disappointed in the power brick as well. I know it seems like a small issue, but one of the reasons I love Apple is that they do everything well - both big things and small things.

I think the 65 watt power adapters are the best ones ever made (for any laptop, any brand). Great size, perfect functionality, and it looks good.

It may just be that the PB G4s were nearly perfect in some ways so that Apple can't improve on them. I think another example is the small, uniform screen border. I think the MBP looks bad because of the extra empty space at the top of the screen due to the iSight. But thats just my two cents. I had a feeling Apple was going to have a hard time improving on the design of the PBs.

 

[Prints]

I posted on the "now shipping" I got my machine about an hour ago; and I have run the "Photoshop test" found on Macrumors hardware forum (running a radial blur on "test.jpg" and timing it. Here is what I found:

The machine is a MBP 2.0ghz, 120GB 5400RPM drive. It was plugged in and running at max performance for all tests.

Started machine, installed CS2, rebooted.
1st. CS2 start, open image and test - 61 seconds
2nd. Close image, reopen and test - 61 seconds
3nd. Restart CS2 - 61 seconds
4rd. Restart MBP, CS2 - 61 seconds
5th. Install 2nd gig of RAM, restart, restart CS2 - 60 seconds
6th. Close Image, reopen, test - 60 seconds.

If you are unfamiliar with the "benchmark" the thread is:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/136593/

For reference, my 1.8 dual G5 takes about 76 seconds! Dual core MBP OWNS it!

***
So what do I think about it? The machine is great, small, just like its G4 siblings. The screen is very bright, no horizontal lines whatsoever. HOWEVER: The screen is LOUD if it is not on max brightness. Not sure if this is normal, just because its new, but it can be annoying. Otherwise, the machine is whisper quiet, even during the tests with the fan on.

How is it that our machines were on the same plane into Indianapolis, and the same plane out at 2 something this morning and my fedex page hasn't updated and I'm still waiting for my machine ?? and you are doing tests on yours !!>?? enjoy....I'm still waiting...

 

[rhoffa]

Has anyone played any games on their Mac Book Pros yet? How about some FPS for Doom 3 (now that its universal), or WOW. I can find benchmarks for the Intel iMac but thats with the 128 mb card. So can anyone share the love letting us know the improvements the 256 vid card brings to the table?

 

[darwin022]

I just hope the power adapter fits in my Zero Halliburton DZ5 with the Pro Book... I guess I will find out this afternoon. If not, I guess I need to find a new case :cry:

 

[jur1st]

Apple Store Arrival

I'm terribly excited by all the postings today. I'm 5th on the list at the KC store and wish there was a way to figure out where thier allocation is.

big ups to everyone who's got their grubby hands on that shiny aluminium.

Has anyone fired up Macromedia Studio 8 yet?

 

[derajfast]

I'm pretty disappointed in the power brick as well. I know it seems like a small issue, but one of the reasons I love Apple is that they do everything well - both big things and small things.

I think the 65 watt power adapters are the best ones ever made (for any laptop, any brand). Great size, perfect functionality, and it looks good.

It may just be that the PB G4s were nearly perfect in some ways so that Apple can't improve on them. I think another example is the small, uniform screen border. I think the MBP looks bad because of the extra empty space at the top of the screen due to the iSight. But thats just my two cents. I had a feeling Apple was going to have a hard time improving on the design of the PBs.

sometimes you people just complain for the sake of complaining.....how does it being any bigger make it worse? seriously. and to say that you appreciated the same size of the screen borders on the older PBooks....do you own one? you do know that the sides are certainly thicker than the top border, or are you just trying to find something to complain about?.....i think its the latter

 

[Spies]

Isn't CS2 running under rosetta?

 

[Fireburst]

I want one but I am gonna have to wait until Adobe release CS3 for the duel binary

 

[1dterbeest]

Not me! I run Photoshop (still 7.0) quite
frequently, and I'm sure it will be about
the same speed if not a little faster than
on my 800mhz iMac G4.

Photoshop 7.0 still runs great on my
iMac. The launch time is kind of long,
but while I'm using it, everything still
blazes! I haven't found anything in
CS1 or CS2 that makes me want to
upgrade yet!

 

[Electro Funk]

Isn't CS2 running under rosetta?

Yes it is!

 

[Electro Funk]

Not me! I run Photoshop (still 7.0) quite
frequently, and I'm sure it will be about
the same speed if not a little faster than
on my 800mhz iMac G4.

Photoshop 7.0 still runs great on my
iMac. The launch time is kind of long,
but while I'm using it, everything still
blazes! I haven't found anything in
CS1 or CS2 that makes me want to
upgrade yet!

Photoshop cs runs much faster in rosetta than native on my pbg4 800m...

this is on an imac core duo (2gig ram) that i bought for my girl...

cant wait to order a macbook pro!

 

[macuser17]

How is it that our machines were on the same plane into Indianapolis, and the same plane out at 2 something this morning and my fedex page hasn't updated and I'm still waiting for my machine ?? and you are doing tests on yours !!>?? enjoy....I'm still waiting...

Yea mine also was on the same plane and I still am gettin the "In Transit". Expected Deliv is Wed 10:30AM.
I'm in Ithaca NY.
Where's yours gettin delivered to?

 

[seancusick]

Cab anyone test:
Unreal 2004 Universal
Doom 3 Universal
and report back.

 

[tokin]

so, preliminary results from a geekbench test are as follows on a 2.0GHz w/ 1GB Ram and a 7200RPM Hard Drive. basis is a 1.6ghz G5 Powermac. first one is done at best performance, second one at best battery saving:

BEST PERFORMANCE
Geekbench Information
Version: Geekbench Preview 2 (r73)
Compiler: GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5250)

System Information
OS: Version 10.4.5 (Build 8G1453)
Model: MacBookPro1,1
Motherboard: MacBookPro1,1
CPU: Intel Core Duo
CPU ID: 7, 4
CPU Count (Physical): 2
CPU Count (Logical): 2
CPU Frequency: 2000 MHz
Bus Frequency: 664 MHz
Memory: 1024 MB

CPU Integer Performance
Emulate 6502 133 (1 thread, 236.4 megahertz)
Emulate 6502 327 (4 threads, 598.2 megahertz)
Blowfish 287 (1 thread, 395.7 megabytes/sec)
Blowfish 546 (4 threads, 828.7 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Compress 104 (1 thread, 18.75 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Compress 235 (4 threads, 43.85 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Decompress 99 (1 thread, 41.46 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Decompress 245 (4 threads, 103.9 megabytes/sec)

CPU Floating Point Performance
Mandelbrot 110 (1 thread, 744.1 megaflops)
Mandelbrot 267 (4 threads, 1.87 gigaflops)

Memory Performance
Latency 520 (1 thread, 20.12 nanoseconds/load)
Read Sequential 275 (1 thread, 1.998 gigabytes/sec)
Write Sequential 139 (1 thread, 823 megabytes/sec)
Stdlib Allocate 113 (1 thread, 88.76 kiloallocs/sec)
Stdlib Allocate 153 (4 threads, 120.7 kiloallocs/sec)
Stdlib Write 131 (1 thread, 2.064 gigabytes/sec)
Stdlib Copy 47 (1 thread, 365 megabytes/sec)

Stream Performance
Stream Copy 102 (1 thread, 1.396 gigabytes/sec)
Stream Scale 105 (1 thread, 1.428 gigabytes/sec)
Stream Add 177 (1 thread, 2.445 gigabytes/sec)
Stream Triad 168 (1 thread, 2.373 gigabytes/sec)

BEST BATTERY
Geekbench Information
Version: Geekbench Preview 2 (r73)
Compiler: GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5250)

System Information
OS: Version 10.4.5 (Build 8G1453)
Model: MacBookPro1,1
Motherboard: MacBookPro1,1
CPU: Intel Core Duo
CPU ID: 7, 4
CPU Count (Physical): 2
CPU Count (Logical): 2
CPU Frequency: 2000 MHz
Bus Frequency: 664 MHz
Memory: 1024 MB

CPU Integer Performance
Emulate 6502 137 (1 thread, 243.9 megahertz)
Emulate 6502 333 (4 threads, 609.1 megahertz)
Blowfish 250 (1 thread, 343.7 megabytes/sec)
Blowfish 556 (4 threads, 843.9 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Compress 116 (1 thread, 20.92 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Compress 247 (4 threads, 45.96 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Decompress 100 (1 thread, 41.81 megabytes/sec)
bzip2 Decompress 249 (4 threads, 105.8 megabytes/sec)

CPU Floating Point Performance
Mandelbrot 115 (1 thread, 774.3 megaflops)
Mandelbrot 272 (4 threads, 1.904 gigaflops)

Memory Performance
Latency 538 (1 thread, 19.46 nanoseconds/load)
Read Sequential 293 (1 thread, 2.131 gigabytes/sec)
Write Sequential 140 (1 thread, 825.6 megabytes/sec)
Stdlib Allocate 110 (1 thread, 86.23 kiloallocs/sec)
Stdlib Allocate 157 (4 threads, 123.7 kiloallocs/sec)
Stdlib Write 135 (1 thread, 2.135 gigabytes/sec)
Stdlib Copy 155 (1 thread, 1.16 gigabytes/sec)

Stream Performance
Stream Copy 113 (1 thread, 1.552 gigabytes/sec)
Stream Scale 114 (1 thread, 1.555 gigabytes/sec)
Stream Add 177 (1 thread, 2.447 gigabytes/sec)
Stream Triad 170 (1 thread, 2.399 gigabytes/sec)

 

[boombashi]

Photoshop cs runs much faster in rosetta than native on my pbg4 800m...

this is on an imac core duo (2gig ram) that i bought for my girl...

cant wait to order a macbook pro!

And CS2 will actually run considerably faster than CS1. Something like average 30% faster on same hardware. I saw some benchmarks awhile ago.

 

[steve_hill4]

New to MR... first post... but have read countless times!

Ok so, has anyone ever thought that (regarding the MBP battery life) that time indicator might be wrong. I know on my 12" PB from a year and a half ago, it often will tell me 3:40 (3 hrs 40 mins).. and then 3 hours later when i look at it again it will tell me something like 1:30 (1 hr 30 mins). More times that not, I get at least a good 4 to 4.5 hours out of my computer on a full charge.

I think that the calibration has a great deal to do with this estimation.. but its just that guys, and estimation! When you go to render a movie or something intensive.. it goes down... and when your idling - so to speak - it goes back up. SO I think we can round that time that we've seen on those who've opened their MBPs as a 'good average' rather than hard fact.

and who knows, maybe a system update will make that even longer!

Which is in contrast to the batteries often found in Pentium based laptops, (particularly the P4). You can sit there doing nothing at times and watch the battery percentage trickle down at almost 1% per minute. Intensive tasks, no problem, it's almost like a timer counter then.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

For those who think the powerbrick is to large, look at the bottom of this page.

Holy C! That thing is GINORMOUS. Very disappointing. I was prepared for it to be bigger than the current PB PS, but that it just crazy big. How much extra does it weigh? Seriously. The PB and MBP might weigh the same, but obviously they don't weigh the same with the brick included, and the only time I care about laptop weight is when I'm schelping it down the airport concourse.

 

[steve_hill4]

mmm, nice. macgasm.

No, seriously.

I like the slim box and cut out styrofoam- smart for apple to save weight and space (also now that apple's in the retail buisness, the storage space vs. ample inventory concerns will probably be larger than shipping costs). More importantly, smart move because the world does not need more styrofoam. Like the details-mag safe, love the new MacBook Pro label at the the bottom of the screen.

One gripe-WHY THE HUGE POWER SUPPLY? Technology makes things better and smaller. A powersupply is certainly better the less space it takes and the less you think about it-hence the superiority of apple's brick to wall and thin cable solution over fatty cable to wall, massive brick, and cable to computer. But that thing is a total step backwards, and a needless one, as powersupply technology isn't exactly a rapidly changing field... at all.

Grr.

Hope to see in real life for screen brightness soon.

I think the huge power supply is related to the greater amount of power consumption of the machine, whilst still wanting to charge the battery at the same rate as previous. Need for more power overall when connected.

 

[Prints]

Yea mine also was on the same plane and I still am gettin the "In Transit". Expected Deliv is Wed 10:30AM.
I'm in Ithaca NY.
Where's yours gettin delivered to?

I'm in Albuquerque, NM. Mine still says

Feb 21, 2006 2:25 AM Departed FedEx location INDIANAPOLIS, IN

?? What's with FedEx ? and I'm going out of town tomorrow morning when it is going to arrive !@?*

 

[steve_hill4]

hehe,

you would need a pair of sun glasses to work in front of the MBP

but i wonder if anyone else noticed, the trackpad on the MBP is much wider than the PB G4.

Yes, it states it on the http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html page.

Hopefully it will feel as comfortable as it looks.

 

[milo]

Ok so, has anyone ever thought that (regarding the MBP battery life) that time indicator might be wrong.

Of course! You should never assume the battery life remaining display is a reliable indicator of battery life, especially before the machine has been fully charged and battery calibrated.

There's only one way to check battery. Charge it up, and time how long the battery actually lasts under different use levels. And it's probably best to use the machine for a while and give it a few charges, make sure the battery is calibrated.

One gripe-WHY THE HUGE POWER SUPPLY?

It's 85 watt vs. 65 watt. They say it charges the machine faster.

 

[jermsmingy]

This baby is FAST!!!!

I got mine this morning!
2.16Ghz
1GB Ram
7200rpm 100gb drive
256vram

I use handbrake to encode all my dvd's for my ipod. My iMac g5 1.8ghz with 1 gig of ram encoded on average about 17-18fps sometimes as high as 25fps, I popped in National Treasure today and rip the whole thing, with an average of 60fps.

Jeremy

 

[darwin022]

Mine is charging and copying my data over from my "old" 1.67GHz G4 powerbook right now...

I figure it needs some time to charge and to "rest" and what better way to rest than to be copying Data over firewire for 3 and a half hours

edit: am I the only person here who is transferring their data over first thing? sad...

 

[intlplby]

keep in mind with CS2... load time is dependent on a lot more than just the computer... extra fonts, plugins and brushes slow it down considerably.....

mine loaded in 23 seconds with no extras


three and a half hours to copy your old data? what are you copying...... it's took me 3.5 hours to copy over 400 gigs over FW400 a week ago..... the macbook drive isn't bigger than 120GB tops.... how is it taking you that long?