I find it funny that I can buy 64GB of RAM for my Mac Pro for less than 16GB of RAM for a MacBook Pro.
<off-topic>
Which is one reason I wish Apple would use desktop RAM instead of laptop RAM in it's iMacs and Mac mini. It's cheaper. The PPC mini used desktop RAM, if I recall correctly. Not sure when the iMacs switched to laptop RAM. Same for HDs for the mini. Make it a tiny bit bigger so we could get cheaper, faster hard drives.
Although, I will be putting the old drive from my MBP into my mini, so I guess that's one advantage.
Which is one reason I wish Apple would use desktop RAM instead of laptop RAM in it's iMacs and Mac mini. It's cheaper. The PPC mini used desktop RAM, if I recall correctly. Not sure when the iMacs switched to laptop RAM. Same for HDs for the mini. Make it a tiny bit bigger so we could get cheaper, faster hard drives.
It did use desktop memory, but due to the size of the box it was limited to a single slot. It was also limited to a single gig of memory.
Having taken apart both my G4 and C2D Minis a few times, I don't think they really could have used desktop components, although by removing the optical drive in the server model, they could have possibly made room (especially in the current model with its wider footprint) for a 3.5" HD.
But then Apple's priority wasn't to squeeze a desktop machine into a tiny cube, it was to fold an iBook (and later a MacBook) into a small cube.
It did use desktop memory, but due to the size of the box it was limited to a single slot. It was also limited to a single gig of memory.
Having taken apart both my G4 and C2D Minis a few times, I don't think they really could have used desktop components, although by removing the optical drive in the server model, they could have possibly made room (especially in the current model with its wider footprint) for a 3.5" HD.
But then Apple's priority wasn't to squeeze a desktop machine into a tiny cube, it was to fold an iBook (and later a MacBook) into a small cube.
Yeah, darn those standard-size off-the-shelf boxes they were forced to use.
But seriously, I always had to laugh when people blamed the size of the box. It's not like Apple had no control over the size of the box when they designed the first one!
I've also taken apart my G4 and Intel minis. In fact, just tore apart the Intel mini tonight to upgrade the RAM and put in the old drive from my MBP. A nice little speed boost with the extra RAM.
The current 27" LED Cinema Display has 2560 x 1440 native resolution, and the old 30" Cinema Display would do 2560 x 1600. The HDMI in your current HDTV or monitor input maxes out at 1920 x 1080.
Not sure what you are getting at there.
All you have done is compare two inputs on different devices, you can't take the input from one device and plug it into the input of another, it doesn't make any sense. But in saying that, HDMI is capable of both the cinema display resolutions you listed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
A surprising number, actually, though you'll need to read the fine print.
All you have done is compare two inputs on different devices, you can't take the input from one device and plug it into the input of another, it doesn't make any sense. But in saying that, HDMI is capable of both the cinema display resolutions you listed.
Uh, yeah, pretty much. With a mini-DisplayPort to HDMI cable, you can plug one end into your MBP and the other to your HDTV.
To clarify for those who are asking for an HDMI port on the MBP line: You can simply use a cable like this to connect a MBP to an HDMI HDTV without restricting the higher resolution support that comes with the DisplayPort standard. You can get them cheaper than $45 if you lookaround.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
What is the number? One is a suprising number
Have you even bothered to look around? Amazon.com, monoprice.com (some but not all, hence the "read the fine print" advice), even at the Apple Stores. I've seen probably eight brands, though many of the knockoff adapters seem to be made at the same plant (same dimensions on the HDMI side).
This wasn't a very good review of performance. Showing me some basic benchmarks & rehashing technical data from Intel's tech sheets isn't really a review, more like something I'd expect in a sales pitch.
Uh, yeah, pretty much. With a mini-DisplayPort to HDMI cable, you can plug one end into your MBP and the other to your HDTV.
You compared the resolution of a TV with the resolution of a cinema display, you said nothing about an output device, just two input devices.
The HDMI spec allows for displays with higher resolution than the cinema displays currently allow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Have you even bothered to look around?
No, a I have no need to purchase one.
But looking at your links, you haven't looked around either, the majority of the ones you provided don't support audio, and the ones that do are over $15
You compared the resolution of a TV with the resolution of a cinema display, you said nothing about an output device, just two input devices.
The HDMI spec allows for displays with higher resolution than the cinema displays currently allow.
Now I know you're trolling. HDMI @ >1080p is a paper spec. No HDTV hardware supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
No, a I have no need to purchase one.
But looking at your links, you haven't looked around either, the majority of the ones you provided don't support audio, and the ones that do are over $15
This one from Amazon is $7 as of the time I posted this. A 6 ft cable, no less. A review from Feb. 17, 2011 says it passes audio and doesn't block other ports on his mid-2010 13" MBP.
If you're more into dongles than cables, this one from Amazon is $12.50 and also supports audio over Display Port.
(Sorry to have to school you in public like that...)
I'd expect the prices of the C300 to drop once the C400 hits the stores soon. The C400 (25nm) is expected at around $412 for a 256GB, which means the C300 should drop a fair bit below $400 to clear inventory - Micron Blogs say it's due mid-March:
Now I know you're trolling. HDMI @ >1080p is a paper spec. No HDTV hardware supports it.
Who said anything about HDTVs???
The OP claim was...
"You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of."
The HDMI spec allows for much higher resolutions than HDTVs run at, just like the DP spec allows for much higher resolutions than cinema displays run at. Using your logic, why don't DP run higher resolutions on a cinema display?
And what's with the trolling comment, are you 12?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
(Sorry to have to school you in public like that...)
I currently use an iMac 24" and a first gen Macbook Pro 15". The Macbook Pro is eating batteries like candy and needs to be retired. So this Fall I will be buying a new 15" along with the apple display. The iMac will become an iTunes server placed between my wives' iMac and my new setup. It will act as a TV and music player.
"You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of."
The HDMI spec allows for much higher resolutions than HDTVs run at, just like the DP spec allows for much higher resolutions than cinema displays run at. Using your logic, why don't DP run higher resolutions on a cinema display?
There isn't an HDMI display device today that does full resolution over the HDMI port. Monitors that do 2560 x 1600 via DisplayPort or DVI ***all*** downres the HDMI input resolution to either 1920x1080 (1080p for 16:9) or 1920x1200 (WUXGA for 16:10). All of them. (And no, I'm not going to do your research for you, Mr. Sawyer. You can find your own links.)
Worse yet, due to the vagaries in your beloved spec, people are constantly fussing with overscan/underscan issues to get the video output and the display to match up for every new display they connect to.
Like I said, high resolution HDMI for computer displays is nothing more than a paper spec.
There isn't an HDMI display device today that does full resolution over the HDMI port. Monitors that do 2560 x 1600 via DisplayPort or DVI all downres the HDMI input resolution to either 1920 x 1080 (1080p for 16:9) or 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA for 16:10). All of them. (And no, I'm not going to do your research for you, Mr. Sawyer. You can find your own links.)
Worse yet, due to the vagaries in your beloved spec, people are constantly fussing with overscan/underscan issues to get the video output and the display to match up for every new display they connect to.
Like I said, high resolution HDMI for computer displays is nothing more than a paper spec.
Which is no different that the spec of DP.
But in saying that, you still are having issues with the original statement that was made
""You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of."
HDMI is capable of DP resolutions, regardless of what consumer electronic devices currently support it, HDMI is still capable of it.
"My beloved spec", like I said, are you 12. What type of bull are you trying to say?
The spec allows for these resolutions, which means someone can release a device supporting these resolutions under the HDMI banner.
Why is this concept difficult for you to understand?
Yup, to each his own. But I think it's a preference of "juicy" or realistic. I can see how a movie like Avatar would look very nice on a glossy display. But since the colors are unrealistic to begin with (in terms of shades and saturation) how do you know it was accurate on the glossy screen? It would be better to use a movie with real-life scenes or photographs that you've taken to make the comparison.
Some digital cameras do the same thing to your photos, and I know of people who crank up the saturation on their camera's settings even more because they think it looks better. More isn't always better.
If your preference is for punchy or juicy or deep saturation, get the glossy screen. If your preference is for accuracy, get the matte screen.
D=ude when i dropped 3k and got matte i was stunned at had ugly it looked
i went to best buy and bought 2 of the same movie
i played them side by side
i had own my new MPB 3 hrs at this time
any way the matte had a dull no juice feel to it
i felt like i was watching a movie behind a saran wrapper
my 16 month OLD MBP glossy looked fantastic
in my jewelry exchange every one said so
Matte may be good for graphic people who need to print stuff
The new MBP was at fed-x in 5 hrs from time of delivery for return
My new high res glossy will be here by monday.
My old glossy will Ebay for $1800.FLAT
Good luck on matte movies dude . We should agree to dis agree
I'd expect the prices of the C300 to drop once the C400 hits the stores soon. The C400 (25nm) is expected at around $412 for a 256GB, which means the C300 should drop a fair bit below $400 to clear inventory - Micron Blogs say it's due mid-March:
thanks marvin, i'll wait for the c400 and will think abt it. if c400 price is 412 dollars + 50 dollars tax i'll get this one for sure. i've read on some forums that using 3rd party SSD's are creating problems in mac osx.
Sorry to be a bit pessimistic but this "review" seems only to restate specs. I had expected real-world tests of battery and performance, for instance. Or the quality of the screen.
Comments
No chips existed yet.
I find it funny that I can buy 64GB of RAM for my Mac Pro for less than 16GB of RAM for a MacBook Pro.
<off-topic>
Which is one reason I wish Apple would use desktop RAM instead of laptop RAM in it's iMacs and Mac mini. It's cheaper. The PPC mini used desktop RAM, if I recall correctly. Not sure when the iMacs switched to laptop RAM. Same for HDs for the mini. Make it a tiny bit bigger so we could get cheaper, faster hard drives.
Although, I will be putting the old drive from my MBP into my mini, so I guess that's one advantage.
</off-topic>
agreed
DO NOT BUY MATTE
TRUST NO ONE
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_2183wt_907
Which is one reason I wish Apple would use desktop RAM instead of laptop RAM in it's iMacs and Mac mini. It's cheaper. The PPC mini used desktop RAM, if I recall correctly. Not sure when the iMacs switched to laptop RAM. Same for HDs for the mini. Make it a tiny bit bigger so we could get cheaper, faster hard drives.
It did use desktop memory, but due to the size of the box it was limited to a single slot. It was also limited to a single gig of memory.
Having taken apart both my G4 and C2D Minis a few times, I don't think they really could have used desktop components, although by removing the optical drive in the server model, they could have possibly made room (especially in the current model with its wider footprint) for a 3.5" HD.
But then Apple's priority wasn't to squeeze a desktop machine into a tiny cube, it was to fold an iBook (and later a MacBook) into a small cube.
It did use desktop memory, but due to the size of the box it was limited to a single slot. It was also limited to a single gig of memory.
Having taken apart both my G4 and C2D Minis a few times, I don't think they really could have used desktop components, although by removing the optical drive in the server model, they could have possibly made room (especially in the current model with its wider footprint) for a 3.5" HD.
But then Apple's priority wasn't to squeeze a desktop machine into a tiny cube, it was to fold an iBook (and later a MacBook) into a small cube.
Yeah, darn those standard-size off-the-shelf boxes they were forced to use.
But seriously, I always had to laugh when people blamed the size of the box. It's not like Apple had no control over the size of the box when they designed the first one!
I've also taken apart my G4 and Intel minis. In fact, just tore apart the Intel mini tonight to upgrade the RAM and put in the old drive from my MBP. A nice little speed boost with the extra RAM.
The current 27" LED Cinema Display has 2560 x 1440 native resolution, and the old 30" Cinema Display would do 2560 x 1600. The HDMI in your current HDTV or monitor input maxes out at 1920 x 1080.
Not sure what you are getting at there.
All you have done is compare two inputs on different devices, you can't take the input from one device and plug it into the input of another, it doesn't make any sense. But in saying that, HDMI is capable of both the cinema display resolutions you listed.
A surprising number, actually, though you'll need to read the fine print.
What is the number? One is a suprising number
Not sure what you are getting at there.
All you have done is compare two inputs on different devices, you can't take the input from one device and plug it into the input of another, it doesn't make any sense. But in saying that, HDMI is capable of both the cinema display resolutions you listed.
Uh, yeah, pretty much. With a mini-DisplayPort to HDMI cable, you can plug one end into your MBP and the other to your HDTV.
To clarify for those who are asking for an HDMI port on the MBP line: You can simply use a cable like this to connect a MBP to an HDMI HDTV without restricting the higher resolution support that comes with the DisplayPort standard. You can get them cheaper than $45 if you look around.
What is the number? One is a suprising number
Have you even bothered to look around? Amazon.com, monoprice.com (some but not all, hence the "read the fine print" advice), even at the Apple Stores. I've seen probably eight brands, though many of the knockoff adapters seem to be made at the same plant (same dimensions on the HDMI side).
Maybe start here: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=mini+displayport+hdmi+audio
Uh, yeah, pretty much. With a mini-DisplayPort to HDMI cable, you can plug one end into your MBP and the other to your HDTV.
You compared the resolution of a TV with the resolution of a cinema display, you said nothing about an output device, just two input devices.
The HDMI spec allows for displays with higher resolution than the cinema displays currently allow.
Have you even bothered to look around?
No, a I have no need to purchase one.
But looking at your links, you haven't looked around either, the majority of the ones you provided don't support audio, and the ones that do are over $15
can someone suggest me if i should go for a SSD drive?
200 dollars price looks nice for 128gb from apple but 256gb price is very high 600 dollars.
You compared the resolution of a TV with the resolution of a cinema display, you said nothing about an output device, just two input devices.
The HDMI spec allows for displays with higher resolution than the cinema displays currently allow.
Now I know you're trolling. HDMI @ >1080p is a paper spec. No HDTV hardware supports it.
No, a I have no need to purchase one.
But looking at your links, you haven't looked around either, the majority of the ones you provided don't support audio, and the ones that do are over $15
This one from Amazon is $7 as of the time I posted this. A 6 ft cable, no less. A review from Feb. 17, 2011 says it passes audio and doesn't block other ports on his mid-2010 13" MBP.
If you're more into dongles than cables, this one from Amazon is $12.50 and also supports audio over Display Port.
(Sorry to have to school you in public like that...)
loving my new Macbook Pro 13" 2.7 i7 dual core... the speed is awesome.
can someone suggest me if i should go for a SSD drive?
200 dollars price looks nice for 128gb from apple but 256gb price is very high 600 dollars.
You can get a Crucial C300 256GB for $420 from eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=250786278131
but it's best to get something that price from a trusted seller like Amazon for an extra $50 (though you might have sales tax):
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Techno.../dp/B0039SM0B2
I'd expect the prices of the C300 to drop once the C400 hits the stores soon. The C400 (25nm) is expected at around $412 for a 256GB, which means the C300 should drop a fair bit below $400 to clear inventory - Micron Blogs say it's due mid-March:
http://www.micronblogs.com/2011/02/h...nd-how-not-to/
which is pretty much next week.
Now I know you're trolling. HDMI @ >1080p is a paper spec. No HDTV hardware supports it.
Who said anything about HDTVs???
The OP claim was...
"You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of."
The HDMI spec allows for much higher resolutions than HDTVs run at, just like the DP spec allows for much higher resolutions than cinema displays run at. Using your logic, why don't DP run higher resolutions on a cinema display?
And what's with the trolling comment, are you 12?
(Sorry to have to school you in public like that...)
Excellent, it isn't one, it is two.
Who said anything about HDTVs???
The OP claim was...
"You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of."
The HDMI spec allows for much higher resolutions than HDTVs run at, just like the DP spec allows for much higher resolutions than cinema displays run at. Using your logic, why don't DP run higher resolutions on a cinema display?
There isn't an HDMI display device today that does full resolution over the HDMI port. Monitors that do 2560 x 1600 via DisplayPort or DVI ***all*** downres the HDMI input resolution to either 1920x1080 (1080p for 16:9) or 1920x1200 (WUXGA for 16:10). All of them. (And no, I'm not going to do your research for you, Mr. Sawyer. You can find your own links.)
Worse yet, due to the vagaries in your beloved spec, people are constantly fussing with overscan/underscan issues to get the video output and the display to match up for every new display they connect to.
Like I said, high resolution HDMI for computer displays is nothing more than a paper spec.
And what's with the trolling comment, are you 12?
Trolling.
While you're at it, remind us all again when PCIe is coming to HDMI?
Excellent, it isn't one, it is two.
Which is a damned sight better than the zero you were claiming.
There isn't an HDMI display device today that does full resolution over the HDMI port. Monitors that do 2560 x 1600 via DisplayPort or DVI all downres the HDMI input resolution to either 1920 x 1080 (1080p for 16:9) or 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA for 16:10). All of them. (And no, I'm not going to do your research for you, Mr. Sawyer. You can find your own links.)
Worse yet, due to the vagaries in your beloved spec, people are constantly fussing with overscan/underscan issues to get the video output and the display to match up for every new display they connect to.
Like I said, high resolution HDMI for computer displays is nothing more than a paper spec.
Which is no different that the spec of DP.
But in saying that, you still are having issues with the original statement that was made
""You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of."
HDMI is capable of DP resolutions, regardless of what consumer electronic devices currently support it, HDMI is still capable of it.
"My beloved spec", like I said, are you 12. What type of bull are you trying to say?
The spec allows for these resolutions, which means someone can release a device supporting these resolutions under the HDMI banner.
Why is this concept difficult for you to understand?
Trolling.
I know what a troll is, and I know it is used by the 12 year olds on AI when they realise they are losing an agrument. Like I said, are you 12?
While you're at it, remind us all again when PCIe is coming to HDMI?
Pardon? What has this got to do with HDMI resolutions?
Which is a damned sight better than the zero you were claiming.
[/quote]
I never claimed this, another AI trait is when you are losing an agrument you start making false claims.
Yup, to each his own. But I think it's a preference of "juicy" or realistic. I can see how a movie like Avatar would look very nice on a glossy display. But since the colors are unrealistic to begin with (in terms of shades and saturation) how do you know it was accurate on the glossy screen? It would be better to use a movie with real-life scenes or photographs that you've taken to make the comparison.
Some digital cameras do the same thing to your photos, and I know of people who crank up the saturation on their camera's settings even more because they think it looks better. More isn't always better.
If your preference is for punchy or juicy or deep saturation, get the glossy screen. If your preference is for accuracy, get the matte screen.
D=ude when i dropped 3k and got matte i was stunned at had ugly it looked
i went to best buy and bought 2 of the same movie
i played them side by side
i had own my new MPB 3 hrs at this time
any way the matte had a dull no juice feel to it
i felt like i was watching a movie behind a saran wrapper
my 16 month OLD MBP glossy looked fantastic
in my jewelry exchange every one said so
Matte may be good for graphic people who need to print stuff
The new MBP was at fed-x in 5 hrs from time of delivery for return
My new high res glossy will be here by monday.
My old glossy will Ebay for $1800.FLAT
Good luck on matte movies dude . We should agree to dis agree
peace
9
You can get a Crucial C300 256GB for $420 from eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=250786278131
but it's best to get something that price from a trusted seller like Amazon for an extra $50 (though you might have sales tax):
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Techno.../dp/B0039SM0B2
I'd expect the prices of the C300 to drop once the C400 hits the stores soon. The C400 (25nm) is expected at around $412 for a 256GB, which means the C300 should drop a fair bit below $400 to clear inventory - Micron Blogs say it's due mid-March:
http://www.micronblogs.com/2011/02/h...nd-how-not-to/
which is pretty much next week.
thanks marvin, i'll wait for the c400 and will think abt it. if c400 price is 412 dollars + 50 dollars tax i'll get this one for sure. i've read on some forums that using 3rd party SSD's are creating problems in mac osx.
Don't expect MacBook Airs to get Thunderbolt. They don't even backlit keyboards currently.
The omission of backlit keyboards is more of a compromise to accommodate thinness, rather than a way to justify luxury between models. IMO
/p