Guess what? It is. I have all of the three finger swipe motions as well as pinch to zoom. The 2008 aluminum unibody MacBook has the same touchpad as the current MacBook "Pro". It's the same freaking design minus the SD card slot and Firewire port.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-2.0-aluminum-13-late-2008-unibody-specs.html
But you don't like it just... because?
Yeah, the process is neat. But as far as build quality goes, it's only better than previous generation Apple products. Not the rest of the industry. Compare the MacBook "Pro" to actual "professional" offerings from HP and Dell and others and you'll see that Apple's lineup is still very far behind.
Still very far behind in what? Processor? Nope. Apple is using the latest Arrandale chips. GPU? Just look at all Dell's offerings and their graphics aren't much different. Battery life? Good luck finding anything that actually bests the MacBook Pro. So how exactly is the MacBook Pro behind again?
Got proof? Gateway (Acer) and HP use the same manufacturer as Apple after all.
Enjoy.
http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf
Have you actually read the MacBook forum threads where people are having these problems? Apple is replacing it as a "courtesy" but specifically blaming the user for "abusing" their system. As soon as those warranties start to end I can guarantee you it won't be such an easy replacement.
And what about people who don't live near an Apple Store? I live in southern California and the closest Apple Store is an hour away.
Doesn't change the fact that Apple's customer service is the highest rated in the business whether a couple of threads of people complaining or not. If you want to go to the Apple store it's an hour away. If you want HP to service your product you call their Indian support team, ship it and wait for weeks.
So you'd rather have a CPU thats slower and a system that cost you $1,300 more just to get a little bit extra battery life? If CPU power is important to me for what I'm doing, I'm going to be plugged in. I'd rather have something done faster. And realistically, when I do take my notebook somewhere, it's carried in a backpack. So the weight of an extra battery means nothing. I've been doing that for a couple of years now with my HP and one 6 high capacity 6 cell battery and one double capacity 12 cell battery. I've had 10 hours of battery life since Apple only had 4.5. Kind of funny that my older HP with dedicated graphics gets better battery life with a user replaceable battery than my MacBook does
CPU power is important to me too, but not what my laptop is being set on fire.
The extra weight means nothing? Yeah, because everyone is like you and takes their high school backpack around with them.
It's kind of funny you expect to me to believe your ******** battery 'statistics' when reviews on HP's own damn website have proven that the battery life is mediocre.
Your Mac can only do that through virtualization or by having multiple OSes installed. Guess what? PCs can virtualize too. PCs can have multiple OSes installed as well.
So your PC can run the entire Final Cut Suite flawlessly? Nope... didn't think so. I can set my Mac up running Windows and Linux in less than an hour.
Another thing to think about is how many more apps there are for Windows. For every one app that exists in OS X to do a specific task, there are 10 in Windows. I know you'll bring up the "quality" argument and try to say that OS X apps are better in some way, but the simple truth is they are not. There are freeware alternatives in Windows to OS X apps that generally do more for free, or the paid alternatives are complete software suites, while the OS X app does only one task.
Find me a free alternative to iLife on Windows that doesn't blow monkey chunks. I can get every industry standard application on my Mac. Your PC can't.
And of course, you say "My Mac can run every application on the planet". Sure, you can think that. But heres the reality of that. That $2,200 MacBook Pro isn't anywhere near as powerful as a $900 notebook "PC". That $1,500 iMac will get slaughtered by an $800 desktop PC. Even the Mac Pro has NO real world advantage over a Core i7 PC desktop other than ECC memory, which has higher latency and slower speed as a result. You CAN build a desktop PC with dual Core i7 processors for significantly less than a dual core Xeon Mac Pro. But anyway, back to my point. Sure, your Mac can run "every application on the planet", as can a PC. But your Mac will do it significantly slower than a PC will that costs less than half as much as that Mac did because Apple charges such a high premium. Your Mac's CPU and GPU will be outdated and unable to run the latest software and games well before a high end PC will be outdated.
That $1500 iMac also won't be raping my electricity bill. But I guess that's not a concern to you because mommy and daddy pay for the bills, right?
That $1500 iMac is backed up by some of the best customer service in the business.
That $2200 MacBook Pro has the best battery life, trackpad and build quality in the business.
And the best part? Let's say I build a desktop PC thats several times faster than the $1,499 iMac. I could do that with a larger and better display for about $600 less total. If both the iMac and that desktop are kept for 4 years, I could upgrade that PC and keep it top end over time. And the best part is that, when those 4 years are up, I will still have spent less money on that PC than on that iMac and I will have had a faster system that entire time.
Ahh, the age old argument of being able to build something better. If you can get something better then why did you buy a MacBook? Why? Because it works. Take it from long time Windows fans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_xDOO8ZJjU
You are comparing an all-in-one to a desktop PC. How about you compare that iMac to some PC all-in-ones? The iMac will leave them in their waste.
You apparently didn't read the links I posted
HP's upcoming Pavilion line will sport high battery life. And from my real world experience owning a few HPs for a few years now, including one of their double capacity batteries that gets nearly 7 hours real world battery life, I have no reason to believe they won't reach their stated specs.
7 hours? I thought it was 10? Which one is it? Your story sure is falling apart.
Enjoy your high failure rate, crap customer support, and mediocre battery life that is no where near what is stated.
All while doing it with MODERN CPUs and MODERN GPUs as well
Not rebadged several generation old technology like Apple continues to use, all for the sake of anorexic computers.
Lynnfield and Arrandale aren't new enough for you? The 330m is superior to what I've seen in Dell's offerings so what's the problem again?
Actually, if you read the topic and topic headline, you'll see it was 14" and 17". Don't try to dismiss facts just because it kills your argument
Actually if you read the rest of the topic you'll see the user was solely talking about the 14".
If you want to talk about i7-QM 17" toaster HP has conjured up then i'll gladly talk about.
Again, don't dismiss reality just because it kills your argument. Might want to try reading the topic as well.
But if you read the headline the user was talking about the 14" and 17" right... so then why did you mention the 15"... oh wait
Uh… wow, that says a lot right there. It's a laptop. You really want iPhone OS on a fully functioning laptop computer? No. That's just stupid. Windows 7 has "multi-touch" capabilities and HP has their "TouchSmart" UI/layer. While it will NOT work on an iPad competitor, it WILL work on a fully functional laptop. Which is exactly what it is.
Yeah it will work. It will work poorly. Windows 7 might have a touch interface added on but it was made primarily for mouse and keyboard input no matter what way you try to twist it. None of these touch screen PC's have caught on for a reason.
Go back and look up the dv6000 series and dv5 series. Then you can thank HP for Apple's current design
I think you are mistaking design for a couple of color choices.
At least HP uses modern ports. Wheres HDMI and eSATA on my MacBook?
HDMI? Mini-Display port out with audio.
eSATA? Firewire 800.
False. I've killed this argument many times over. 16:10 offers no real world benefit, other than making things all screwed up. OS X is inefficient with desktop space anyway, when you take into account the always there menubar and the inefficient and bloated dock. With Windows you can at least gain your full desktop space back by having a disappearing taskbar and PROPER window switching using keyboard shortcuts.
You've said you proved it yet you didn't here. OSX is inefficient with desktop space? You can put your dock on the right or left side of the screen and make it hide. With Windows you have a cluttered mess of tiny windows jammed at the bottom of your screen with that disgusting tray. 16:10 offers more vertical pixels while still offering a wide enough viewing angle. You can't change this.
Yes I do know someone who had that problem.
I've also killed that "highest rated" argument on multiple occasions. You see, Apple gets such high ratings from its dedicated fanbase. There are people here who have had a single Mac go through half a dozen motherboard replacements and other repairs. Yet those same people still give Apple glowing ratings in those after service emails. With any other manufacturer, a regular person would give them the worst ratings popular. Apple gets such high ratings because the fans, despite the poorly built products and multiple repairs and spending weeks without their system that cost 2x more than it should, still somehow think they're being treated better than they would be if they had bought a PC. But in the real world, where brand loyalty means nothing, if someone even goes through one major repair, that company gets a negative review.
What a joke. The majority of Apple customers are not loyal to Apple. The majority of Apple's customers are people who just walk into the store and like to buy a product without looking up information online beforehand. You really think a fanbase can turn the tide of ratings that much? What a joke and a pathetic argument.
Like I said, look up the dv6000 and dv5 series. HP had the design first. Including the glass screens.
Like I said, a couple of colors is laughable and the fact that HP calls it the ENVY is even funnier.
No but they did try to take it mainstream first
They made it mainstream? I'd like to see the report on this.
You keep going back to old news but apple HAVE shot themselves in the foot with the unibody!
Really? They shot themselves in the foot with the best manufacturing process in the business that provides exceptional quality? Ok.
You can sell it to me with bells on it that the i5 was not included in the macbook pro 13" because the i3 weren't up-to the job there a large company that don't need protecting they could of pulled a deal with AMD over delay it toke to refresh the things!
AMD's mobile chips are garbage. It's pretty clear you are just responding because you can. You have no real grasp on the actual conversation going on.
The Vaio Z crammed in a 2.66 i7 and a 330 1gb into a tiny frame! with a few vents! at half the weight of a MBP 13" and that came out just after christmas yet its stylish so that site is talking rubbish!
That VAIO Z also a 6.5 claimed hour battery life, is $1899, and has a completely different internal layout than the MacBook Pro. It's also thicker and has ICs mounted on both sides.
Cost is mentioned again about the i5 on that site i mean really would it put up the price that much? when you can by an i5 notebook for less then £600
Those plastic notebooks also take less money to manufacture.
Most notebook manufactures get there CPU's for next to nothing anyway! its the cost of design and marketing they need to make a profit on and they do it very well!
Show me where you pulled this statistic out of your ass from please.
You can cram anything into a small space and call it magical but there are limits and the unibody is beyond its limit to offer the bang for buck performance/style ratio!
The unibody is beyond its limits? Apple's sales figures say otherwise.
I could go by a porsche tomorrow stick a crappy engine in it it gets me from A-B but its looks nice so it will do even though i have paid the same price no i want my power i paid for under the hood!
You can also stick a V8 in a go-kart but it won't be like driving in a Ferrari. Two can play at the car game.
This is another case of the engine don't match the body work! the 13" is well well well overpriced on a 3 year old unibody design that could of been improved or altered to make room for new cpus for that price!!
3 year old design? The unibody was introduced in late 2008 and is still the best in the business.
They had the time frame all they done is stuck to there guns with excuses again and called it faster better more empowering marketing bull! yet what is it?
It IS faster. It has higher clocked processors than before, faster graphics than before, more HDD space than before and more battery life than before.
A core 2 due you probably brought in a windows notebook about 2yr ago for £1000 why should users have to pay that again now for one because of a pretty case?
That Core 2 Duo has the same performance as an i3 has now, buddy. Do a little research.
The 13" for specs and the old design should be around £700 tops
Old design? LMAO!
I mean there that lazy the imac are using core duos still and there massive!
Apple was using the best processors they could at the time. Clarkdale was not out. Again, do some research or stop wasting my time.
had competition then they would loose a significant MARKET that they control
