retroz311 said:
It IS A RIP off when parts cost less than $50+ for the MBP and they design the MacBook to NOT run any PRO applications - it's the same business model that Avid / Digidesign had for a while, whereas other open platforms allowed for many plug ins, unlimited tracks, etc
Wow. Sounds like you simply don't understand how this machine works, that's an absolutely clueless statement. What pro apps won't this run? This will run photoshop, Logic, FCP, aperture fine (actually VERY well in some cases, as well as the iMac and MBP), as people have already shown. And for the record, your response was to a post about pricing of the colors. I guess you missed that?
Can someone confirm whether Motion works or not? What is performance like?
Gatezone said:
Exactly my point. While the sz is more expensive it is half the weight or less. And while you do pay extra for the carbon case there is a qualitative difference not just a color... I some times wonder if the Apple engineers actually get out that often and wonder around Fry's
. I guess it might be a little depressing but might also lead to real innovations.
You just answered your own question. The Sony Is More Expensive. "Innovative" has nothing to do with it, if truly was really innovative they would have a lighter laptop for the same price. Apple simply had to decide between cost and weight and they chose cost. You complain about that, but if they made a machine that was lighter at the Sony price point, I'd bet there'd be ten times the complaining.
So is there a laptop that has the features and specs of the MB, and weighs less for $1099?
Hector said:
for 2d stuff and video the 9550 still wins, the ati core can take more of a workload off the cpu playing videos than gma 950 can and for 2d stuff the gpu is not used much apart from with QE and CI which theirs not much diffrence anyway.
That's flat out wrong. The MB can play 1080i HD video, can the old powerbook do that? No. Just for the record, intel's specs say the 950 can playback TWO simultaneous HD streams (they don't specify which HD format). I don't know if apple's drivers are actually taking advantage of that, if they aren't yet, we may see even better video performance down the road with optimizations.
Gatezone said:
I totally agree with the expectation and projection process, but I don't really see a legitimate "niche" for these Macbooks. Does that mean they won't sell? No, they'll sell, but does that mean they make a lot of sense as a separate and distinct product line? No, unless you factor in consumer subsidized throw it against the wall market testing. .
What the hell are you talking about? These machines hit the sweet spot, probably the biggest market for laptops. You get a ton of performance and features for a very fair price. For people doing work instead of gaming, these machines are just perfect. Other than beefing up the graphics for gaming, what are these missing that they'd need to "make sense" to you?
macamacamac said:
Does having a video card help playing back HD quicktime content, or is this dependent on the processor?
Nope, it will run HD just fine. It's the same video hardware as the mini, and people confirmed the duos run HD no problem long ago.
lilstewart said:
It has to be twice the specs of my current one, GHz, talking now.
So basically, 2.8GHz. And it has to be at least 2 years. (had it for 10months)
Don't forget, these are dual core. So they are already *more* than twice as fast as your current machine. I'm much worse than you, I wait for TEN times the specs before I upgrade. I finally got that going from G3/333 to dual 1.66.
Gatezone said:
Yes, it's a good thing for Apple to charge more for the black one. It cost them a lot of money over their production run to do black. It's designer black. It's cool black. It's matte finish black. Easily worth $500 more but it's a bargain at $150.
It probably doesn't cost apple a cent more to make black. But if people are willing to pay it, why shouldn't apple take the free money? Think of it as a tax on either "coolness" or "stupidity" depending on your point of view. Seriously, can you fault ANY company for taking advantage of customers who are willing to throw money at them for no particular reason? If your boss told you he'd pay you more if you'd wear black to work, wouldn't YOU do it? (even though really you'd be ripping him off, right?)
