I'm just wondering. I normally used the 9400M but decided to check if there was any difference today using the 9600GT. I surfed, mailed and did some Aperture/Photoshop work but really didn't notice any difference. What applications exactly would make me see the difference (except from games in bootcamp...)
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.
When do you use your 9600GT in OsX ?
- Thread starter lapino
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How do you switch between the two? Ya Im a newb lol. I got the MBP because I know its gonna be enough computer for me for the next 3 or so years. I also do alot of video and picture stuff along with gaming so I need it. But how do you switch from one to the other?
Because I could? No just kidding. Bought a Macbook first but switched to a Macbook pro because I found the 1280x800 resolution kinda limiting, although I kinda think the MBP is just a tad too big for my use. Can't have both I guess (a MB with 1440x900 res would be perfect for me)
You switch by clicking the battery icon on top, and then choose the higher performance instead of longer battery life.
Oh so it doesnt really matter a whole lot about battery life if you are using it plugged in which is when I am gaming and stuff. Cool thanks.
Ive been running the 9600GT for, umm, a few weeks now. I run Aperture 2 and I think it helps with the Photo editing. Other than that, I'm running it just because I can.
Watching movies on battery is not a problem. Ive got 3 hours easy out of it with enough charge left over to watch another 45 minute clip of something else. Maybe there could be more, but when I looked at the batter level it read 35% left. If I remember correctly, thats much better than the benchmark test done when the Unibody MBP first came out. Not that it makes a difference but my MBP was manufactured in November of 08...
Watching movies on battery is not a problem. Ive got 3 hours easy out of it with enough charge left over to watch another 45 minute clip of something else. Maybe there could be more, but when I looked at the batter level it read 35% left. If I remember correctly, thats much better than the benchmark test done when the Unibody MBP first came out. Not that it makes a difference but my MBP was manufactured in November of 08...
A little harsh? Some people, myself included, want the extra screen real estate. We don't need the extra graphics card (at the moment) and 4GB is enough RAM for us. But the screen is what makes the 15" MBP so popular with normal users like us. I spend a lot of time away from my external, so the 15" is perfect size and has portability. If I had it my way, Apple would make a 15" MB.
They should. I've got a feeling they're going to make a 15" MBA sometime soon. Normal Macbooks are too cheap, and dont make them enough profit even though they are Apples consumer line, but a 15" Macbook Air would fit nicely in Apples business model and they could sell it for a nice markup.
MBA is thin, but a little too thin. The MB and MBP are just right.
Besides that, I don't understand why people buy the MBA with what you can get inside. Do they just use them for small tasks? I dont see how MBA could run some of the more processor and graphics intensive tasks with out being slow.
Besides that, I don't understand why people buy the MBA with what you can get inside. Do they just use them for small tasks? I dont see how MBA could run some of the more processor and graphics intensive tasks with out being slow.
The Rev B can do a lot more then what you might think.
I was able to use Rev A as a primary machine with Virtual Machines as my main line of work.
I would get a 15" Air as long as there was a healthy HD, option for 4GB RAM, and wasn't terribly overpriced. I would miss the Superdrive and the removable battery/HD/RAM though, terribly. I'm actually fine sticking with the 2.4 MBP (hopefully will have one in two weeks for my birthday!), I just don't want to listen to all the flack about "why'd you get a Pro if you didn't need the graphics card, blahblahblah". I want everything else, minus the graphics card (although Sims3 will take advantage of it I hope), and even the Firewire I'll probably use with an external. Who cares about an extra graphics card and whether I need it or not, there's never going to be a computer that gets you everything you do want and leaves off the rest.
I think we've all gotten pretty spoiled with the capabilities of some of these newer systems. I'm currently looking at upgrading my laptop from a 3 year old Thinkpad T60 running XP Pro. It has a whopping 1GB of RAM, a 60GB HD (of which I'm only using about 38 despite having used it for 3 years), and a 1.83 Ghz Core Duo with integrated crappy Intel graphics. I live on that machine, using it 8-12 hours a day for work, personal use, and some light gaming. I'm not a video editor, professional photographer, etc, but I do generally have 5-10 app and browser windows open, work with 200 page PowerPoint decks, huge Excel files, and a 10GB Mail folder. Honestly, the biggest bottleneck on that machine is the slow hard drive. Everything else about it has been fine, though the graphics card can't handle games that need 3D rendering, but it isn't built for that.
If you look at the specs of the machine I just described, which is the typcial business laptop in use by most companies today, the MBA Rev 2 has a slightly faster and newer Core Duo processor, twice the RAM, a better integrated graphics setup, and twice the HD space in a much faster SSD, weighs two pounds less, and gets about the same battery life (though you can't swap batteries). It's lacking a built-in CD drive, but I rarely use mine anyway, execpt to convince some games that I'm using a licenced copy. For me, especially as someone who is on 4-8 flights in a typical week, the MBA is a very attractive machine. The light weight and thin form factor make it a great machine for using on airplanes. The issue isn't the capabilities it comes with today, as much as it is how useful it will be in the future, especially the non-upgradable RAM. It's also expensive, but ultra-portables always are.
If you are into video editing, work with RAW photo images, or otherwise need a very high powered machine, I'd agree the Air isn't for you, but for a business user who travels, it's a great looking little machine.
Gah, This drives me nuts every time - You don't have to be a 'Pro' to buy and use a MacBook Pro. You don't. Apple calls it a 'Pro' model because it represents the best of their technology but it doesn't exclude average users from buying one. By that logic, all consumers must stick to the standard MacBook, which means they only get a maximum of 13.3" screen (and a not particularly good one at that). What if they want an Apple laptop with a 15" screen? Maybe a 17"? Nope, that isn't allowed because all they want to use it for is surfing, watching movies etc.
I think Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by having the 'Pro' label on the 15" and 17" laptops these days (particularly as the MacBook shares the same Unibody construction) as it draws an imaginary line and people think they shouldn't buy the 'Pro' machine unless they're actually a computing professional. Personally, I think it's stupid, there should just be a MacBook 13", 15" and 17".
I didn't care if it was called "Pro" or "Amateur" or "Semi-Pro Friday Night Wednesday Night League".
The reason I got the MBP was that the LCD panel didn't suck as much as the one in the regular 13" macbook.
If they put the panel from the MBA into a 13" macbook without even the discrete GPU and a 2.4 max CPU, I'd have gladly gotten that.
That said, the extra screen real estate of the 15" and the gaming power under Bootcamp is a nice luxury. I rarely, if ever, have the GPU enabled under OSX, though. I'd rather maximize battery life.
John
The reason I got the MBP was that the LCD panel didn't suck as much as the one in the regular 13" macbook.
If they put the panel from the MBA into a 13" macbook without even the discrete GPU and a 2.4 max CPU, I'd have gladly gotten that.
That said, the extra screen real estate of the 15" and the gaming power under Bootcamp is a nice luxury. I rarely, if ever, have the GPU enabled under OSX, though. I'd rather maximize battery life.
John
Hmmm am i not mistaken into believing that the white macbook has been apples best selling mac.
I haven't used my 9600GT at all since I got my 17" MBP but it's nice to know it's there for when I actually need it. On the move I value power consumption over graphics performance but when on mains power it's a non-issue. In fact, it would be good if Apple developed the way to swap without having to log out and back in again, you could have it so it used the 9600GT when on the power adapter, and 9400M when on battery.
construction is the same, but Firewire/9600m isnt.
i dont use 9600m. i bought the 15" because of Firewire and screen size.
im waiting for Snow Leopard to actually run the 9600.
Wow, Mr. Thin Skin, how is that harsh? He simply asked why the OP bought an MBP. A fair and valid question, to determine his intended usage. You must be one of those "easily offended" types. Go have a beer and relax my friend, it seems like you need it.