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.
Macbook Update in progress (2.4Ghz)
- Thread starter pdubak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is there a cracking issue on the new Unibody Macbooks?
Agreed, save for the previous gen Macbook model, cracking on the plastic Macs is kinda of rare. I'd expect the unibodies to be even better in terms of durability.
I can still dream
Even though sinking reality tells me that my next notebook upgrade will have to be a 15" model, and with a matte screen it's gonna be about £600 more than I was hoping to spend on one.
Makes you wonder what Apple is going to do in terms of the upgrade paths for the 13" models. Intel's sort of screwed them over on this one.
Near eSATA performance. Though the same can be replicated with a eSATA/USB combo port. It's just harder to find combo devices that will power over the same connector when compared to just USB 3.0.
Many people often forget to mention the software in their Mac-PC comparisons. out-of-the-box MacWare KILLS anything that comes with a PC.
Windows Moviemaker? total garbage. Windows Live Photo Gallery? trash. etc.
You can do some incredible work with a Mac from the day you start it up - it's part of the premium and well worth it.
and you get to do it all on beautifully designed hardware.
Windows Moviemaker? total garbage. Windows Live Photo Gallery? trash. etc.
You can do some incredible work with a Mac from the day you start it up - it's part of the premium and well worth it.
and you get to do it all on beautifully designed hardware.
This is a standard update. Nothing much to speak of. The previous refresh was the bigger deal with the introduction of the unibody and bigger battery.
Still, Apple should have made 4GB of RAM standard. A MacBook is an entry level purchase which will hopefully lead to many more Mac purchases. The user experience is important in that regards. 4GB or RAM greatly increases the user experience and I don't think Apple would have lost much in terms of profit.
Still, Apple should have made 4GB of RAM standard. A MacBook is an entry level purchase which will hopefully lead to many more Mac purchases. The user experience is important in that regards. 4GB or RAM greatly increases the user experience and I don't think Apple would have lost much in terms of profit.
If Toshiba (http://www.toshibadirect.com/td/b2c/retail-product.jsp?poid=461020) can squeeze an i5 into a 13", surely the hardware geniuses at Apple can figure out how to get an i5 in a 13" MBP. I know it's all about using the NVIDIA 320M instead of the weaker Intel HD graphics. They say there is no room, but you can't be the last one to every party.
Blaming others in order to protect Apple Inc is getting pretty widespread. What has Intel got to do with the fact that Apple is selling midrange computers at premium price?
It must be Steve Jobs with his endless excuses. Yep, blame Adobe for not having Flash on your iPhone and iPad and blame Intel for paying £849 for a white plastic laptop, despite the fact that the Intel processor inside is dirt cheap.
One day, jobs will start blaming the Vatican for the lack of Firewire and AT&T for the 256MB RAM on the iPad.
It must be Steve Jobs with his endless excuses. Yep, blame Adobe for not having Flash on your iPhone and iPad and blame Intel for paying £849 for a white plastic laptop, despite the fact that the Intel processor inside is dirt cheap.
One day, jobs will start blaming the Vatican for the lack of Firewire and AT&T for the 256MB RAM on the iPad.
I bet you can not.
The new 13" MacBook Pro is not only the quietest Apple laptop ever. It's also the coolest - got one for my girlfriend when it was released. It runs way, way cooler than my 15" Unibody 2.4Ghz C2D MacBook Pro (and it even seems a bit faster too!). As my girlfriend stated after having watched a movie on it, lying in bed, with the laptop buried in the sheets "Wow, feel it - It's not even hot!"
If the new MacBook is anything like the latest 13" MacBook Pro I'd say this is probably the most well balanced Apple laptop ever.
Only thing is, I'd go for the 13" Pro:
Aluminum Unibody cabinet + Firewire 800 + built-in SD card Reader + backlit keyboard + 4 GB RAM instead of 2.
Easy choice.
Um actually, he is justified in blaming Adobe. Flash DOES use a lot of power, especially in phones and devices like the iPad. Flash video on my HD2 absolutely destroys battery life, and the screen gets so hot that it is actually uncomfortable to hold to your face afterwards.
Microsoft have also said that they see the future of the web as being HTML5 and Silverlight, and not Flash. Obviously you can say they are biased but when both MS and Apple are pulling away from a platform, it becomes difficult to keep on supporting it.
I've no doubt that they could get an i3/i5 and a dedicated GPU in there, but a severe cost to the battery life I would imagine. Or go the intel integrated GPU route, or they may end up using AMD mobile processors. None of those options I'm really too impressed with, here's hoping they have a fourth lined up.
It's not an issue of "squeezing in" the i3/i5 into the 13". Apple could do that today if they wanted to. It's the issue of being forced into Intel's onboard graphics solution. That Toshiba uses the onboard Intel graphics. Apple is really trying to avoid putting out a product like that, especially since they've spent the last year and half espousing the performance of the nVidia integrated GPUs they've been using.
Licensing issues with Intel prevent 3rd party chipset makers like nVidia from making something like the 320M that is used with the Core 2 Duos.
You are right, there's always a way. But it would require a major redesign of the 13" overall.
Bedside lamp wakes up the girlfriend. Not to mention that I use my computer for other things than just my job.
The "Vietnamese source" shows a seven hour battery life on the retail box, while the actual new MacBook has the same "Built-in 10-hour battery" as the 13" MBP.
So that "source" is only "the Shiz" with Photoshop.
Mr. Blurrycam, FTW.
In the $1000+ consumer range? Almost all of them.
Which says more about the 64GB iPad than the MacBook...
I totally agree with you on the 4GB standard.
I'm kind of disappointed that the MacBook Pro 13" and the MacBook have such similar specs. Paying $200 for 2 GB of RAM and the aluminum case seems worthwhile to me. Wouldn't they do better if they dropped the price of the MacBook and beefed up the 13" MBP?
Well, what else are they going to do? They've been getting off easy since 2008 in the 13" since they haven't changed a thing (except adding SD card reader & FW800 ...Wow). Does anyone think it might be time for a redesign of the interior? Apple is about innovation after all. They've been too busy trying to create a market for the iPad and redesigning the iPhone and have been lagging in the content-creation department, which is totally obvious with the lack of the Mac Pro update.
What does software matter when the hardware is generations behind the competition? Apple is the only major manufacturer still charging a premium price for now several years old processor technology.
Also, your arguments fail miserably and show that the majority of anti-Windows sentiment hasn't been valid for years. Windows "Movie Maker" no longer ships with Windows, nor does Windows Photo Gallery. Windows Live Photo Gallery is a downloadable option.
There are plenty of freeware options for Windows, such as Picasa, that are either just as good as bundled Apple apps or, in the case of Picasa, better.
Not only that, but the vast majority of people who own a Mac will never use any of the iLife apps other than iPhoto. Of all the people I have known over the years that have owned at least one Mac, none of them ever used the iLife suite after opening the apps up to look at them. I don't even have any of the iLife apps on my Mac, other than iPhoto.
And, I have to say again, what does, in your opinion, beautifully designed hardware matter when its both severely overpriced by hundreds, or sometimes well over a thousand dollars, and its using generations old technology that can't even begin to keep up with the competition? Who cares if the $2,200 MacBook "Pro" looks pretty when it can't even keep up with a $1,000 PC that has a true quad core CPU and a GPU thats faster than any shipping Mac GPU?
Look at the Mac Pro. As I pointed out in an earlier post, nothing about OS X or the design (which is how old now?) justifies the nearly $1700 price premium compared to the exact same PC hardware.
Sub-$1,000 PC notebooks have been shipping with blu-ray drives for a long time now.
The past, monkeys and pineapples...
Used to be, perhaps. Today the magic and revolution stops at the level of an iPod Touch with a larger screen.
Sorry, I was actually confusing apples with pineapples. It's not dancing bears but cycling monkeys.
At least you have an option. How many thousands do you have to pay for a Mac and still NOT to have the choice?
Used to be, perhaps. Today the magic and revolution stops at the level of an iPod Touch with a larger screen.
Sorry, I was actually confusing apples with pineapples. It's not dancing bears but cycling monkeys.
At least you have an option. How many thousands do you have to pay for a Mac and still NOT to have the choice?
All you have to do is look
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115726 $599
If you want to pay Apple-like prices http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114804 True quad core, 16:9, 6GB of RAM.
It's also hard to justify the $999 MacBook when you can get this for $200 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115732 Core i5, dedicated GPU.
Run Circles??
Yeah and I'll bet that lovely Dell 17" screen is a high contrast one that doesn't washout when you tilt it forward and back huh?
The Macbook screen however is just the opposite. I would rather have a smaller high contrast screen with great blacks and wide viewing angles than yours.
We don't need to go there about the Macbook's 10hr battery life right?