Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?
If your work requires you to sit in front of the computer for 12-hour stretches, it helps. If you take your laptop into your client's workspace where you have no control over your environment, it helps. If you work in a collaborative environment where others are trying to look at your screen off-axis, it helps. If you work on material that requires you to distinguish between very subtle shades of dark colors and black, it helps. In other words, if you work in design, illustration, photography, advertising, film and video production, it helps.
You can get by with a lot of things, like a two year old MBP, for example.
The question is whether the benefits of a new machine are compelling enough. There are pluses and minuses, and the fact that we can't opt out from glossy is a definite minus. So if you are iffy about upgrading, you won't, or you'll wait for some other feature to clinch the deal for you in the next update.
Please take in consideration that I only want to proof that a BIGGER MACBOOK pro in on the way. It can even be bigger that the 17" (Personally I don't think that), the only variable is the 100mm of the space bar key.
What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.
Yes, sorta like I need the power of a MacBook Pro but would rather a smaller screen, so a 12" MacBook Pro would be perfect for me. They'd sell a ton of those too.
More choice is always a good thing...
Oh and my $.02 on glossy - the biggest problem with glossy is this quote from Apple: "You offset the reflection by the brightness." This DOES work; however, guess what part of a laptop sucks the most power? The display backlight is the main culprit. This is why you can get considerably longer battery life by turning down the backlight on your LCD. If Apple were to do extended-life batteries or something along those lines to compensate, it'd be fine. As it stands, I am happy with my last-gen non-glossy 15" MBP.
What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.
I agree! Paying 2 grand for a reasonable sized screen is silly, my mom bought a pc with a 15" screen for $650, not a macbook pro but it goes to show that apple can afford it.
Now that it's not locked with the others, I would expect late March, early April. Apple has updated their 17" and other pro computer models a few times in the previous years in that time frame. It might be something new to show off at NAB. If they continue their previous 24 month product cycle on Final Cut, Final Cut Studio should be available at that time.
Apple didn't have a booth at this year's NAB, but I think that's in part because they didn't have anything new to show off, there's no point in spending millions to show off the previous year's products. But FCS 3, a new 17" pro notebook, maybe Final Cut Server 1.5 is probably enough to make it worth a booth there next year.
That's exactly what I'm thinking, it makes the most sense. Maybe by then the mac pro will have display port on it's stock card and the 20 and 30 inch displays will see a refresh to the new enclosure at the same time.
"Apple's next-gen 17-inch MacBook Pro due in a few months"
Grrr....That sounds more like "Macworld" than this year.
I need a 17 for the video work I do, the HD native res and the screen real estate. I really can't see paying $3K for the current model, with its somewhat flimsy case, and old GPU, especially since the Pro apps use the GPU so much. And I'm hoping that Apple will wise up and make the 17 faster than the 15 inch, rather than just use the extra space for larger speakers
Oh, and please, keep the anti-glare. Glossy == evil.
You aren't really supposed to be doing crucial color work in a bright room any way. You are supposed to be in a low lit setting. So that the ambient light around you doesn't bias your eye.
The CPU is usually faster in the 17". But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.
But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.
Dear TenoBell & Friends
I thought Intel was presently shipping 3.06GHz mobile processors. I'm certain those processors are being advertised on Lenovo's site.
I thought that if Intel was letting the other hardware vendors have 3.06, Apple would be the first to ship a notebook with something faster than that as part of an exclusive arrangement with Intel.
Believe it or not, I'm still getting by with my seven-year-old 1GHz 15" PowerBook G4, but I have a 3GHz dual-quad Mac Pro with 9GB of RAM and a 30" Cinema Display for editing images. I browse and write with the PowerBook and leave the heavy lifting to the Mac Pro.
But my wife and I plan to upgrade to the new 17" when it's available. John Gruber's hunch is that the 17" might be phased out, and that scared me. I'd like to have a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro if such existed.
But my wife and I plan to upgrade to the new 17" when it's available. John Gruber's hunch is that the 17" might be phased out, and that scared me. I'd like to have a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro if such existed.
Indeed, I was a tad worried that the 17" (or any larger laptop) was being End of Life'd altoghether, hence my avid interest in this thread. My 1 GHz TiBk still works fine, but it is PowerPC and the GPU doesn't work even with older versions of Motion, nor the CPU with newer Intel Only Mac Aps. A 17" is what I need, so the lack of one was a real disapointment, and we can expect that the won't be coming any earlier than December, since some products for November were announced on Tuesday. So, it seems highly possible they'll hold out until Macworld SF in January rather than a December release, but one can hope.
Indeed, I was a tad worried that the 17" (or any larger laptop) was being End of Life'd altoghether, hence my avid interest in this thread. My 1 GHz TiBk still works fine, but it is PowerPC and the GPU doesn't work even with older versions of Motion, nor the CPU with newer Intel Only Mac Aps. A 17" is what I need, so the lack of one was a real disapointment, and we can expect that the won't be coming any earlier than December, since some products for November were announced on Tuesday. So, it seems highly possible they'll hold out until Macworld SF in January rather than a December release, but one can hope.
I'm probably the lone voice crying in the wilderness here, but when I got my work MBP 17 two years ago, I decided to try the glossy screen, as I give a lot of presentations in addition to industrial and graphic design (often dealing with color for our product trade dress). I like the more vibrant color with the glossy screen, and there have only been a few times in two years that glare issues were bad enough that I had to physically relocate to address it.
I guess it's not been a huge issue for me, certainly not anywhere near the problem everyone keeps griping about...
Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?
If you mean people that absolutely *hate* the glossy displays, then it sure sounds like it. What do you mean by "need" anyway? If you mean, they would be unable to get their work done, the answer is probably "no." OTOH, if you mean people that hate having to deal with excessive reflections and are sensitive to them, there are probably hordes. I am one of them. I want the choice and as a consumer it's an easy one for me. Even though I generally love Apple's hardware, the glossy-only choice is a showstopper for me. I also want 8 GiB of RAM and a 500+ GB hard drive. I have 4 GiB and 320 GB now. I would like to see a blu-ray drive, too. I further think that the new MacBook Pro models are much uglier than the old ones. I *hate* the black keyboard and the black border around the display. Fortunately I can hold off for now and if I don't like the 17" MacBook Pro early next year and it doesn't have a matte display I'll probably go with another 15" laptop that I can run Ubuntu Linux on. Yes, I am one of the tiny minority who, apart from the nice hardware, bought a Mac because I use and love Unix.
But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.
There's a Core 2 Duo T9800 planned for Q1 2009 and it will run at 2.93GHz with FSB 1066 and 6MB cache, $530. T means 35W, cool enough for any MBP. There is also a 2.66 model planned as well as speedbumps/price cuts planned for Q1 2009 (which could mean late march 2009). There is aslo a 35W quad-core at 2.00GHz in the works ($530?).
So plenty of possible speedbump for a Spring update of all mobile/hybrid Macs.
Yes, sorta like I need the power of a MacBook Pro but would rather a smaller screen, so a 12" MacBook Pro would be perfect for me. They'd sell a ton of those too.
More choice is always a good thing...
Oh and my $.02 on glossy - the biggest problem with glossy is this quote from Apple: "You offset the reflection by the brightness." This DOES work; however, guess what part of a laptop sucks the most power? The display backlight is the main culprit. This is why you can get considerably longer battery life by turning down the backlight on your LCD. If Apple were to do extended-life batteries or something along those lines to compensate, it'd be fine. As it stands, I am happy with my last-gen non-glossy 15" MBP.
Yes, I can just hear my grandmother now if she were to watch the MacBook video. "What's that little line across the screen?"
It's funny, the people that like the glossy screens say it's not a problem and usually reference ambient lighting as the culprit of glare. They often say, "move it, and you won't have a problem." But Apple, in it's advertisements with glossy screens does not make an effort to reduce the effect of the glare. Instead they make an effort to be SURE that you see that glare effect on the screen (above). They want to be sure we know that that screen is so shiny you can practically use it as a mirror. In fact, one could almost say that this is so important to Apple that they are willing to sacrifice the promotion of screen quality and clarity, just to show that the screen is shiny. As you can see, to the left of the "shine line" above we see clarity and to the right we see washed out color.
I really like these new MacBooks, but Apple still has some work to do. Just my thoughts.
There's a Core 2 Duo T9800 planned for Q1 2009 and it will run at 2.93GHz with FSB 1066 and 6MB cache, $530. T means 35W, cool enough for any MBP. There is also a 2.66 model planned as well as speedbumps/price cuts planned for Q1 2009 (which could mean late march 2009). There is aslo a 35W quad-core at 2.00GHz in the works ($530?).
Dear mjteix & Friends
What's the fastest processor available for mobile computers right now?
Here's a screenshot from Lenovo's site relating to a ThinkPad configuration. I thought 3.06GHz was the fastest available non-quad-core chip.
I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.
To get a better representation of what the colors will look like when printed. Pantone colors look very different on the two displays, but the printer calibration is easier on the non glossy screen.
Comments
Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?
If your work requires you to sit in front of the computer for 12-hour stretches, it helps. If you take your laptop into your client's workspace where you have no control over your environment, it helps. If you work in a collaborative environment where others are trying to look at your screen off-axis, it helps. If you work on material that requires you to distinguish between very subtle shades of dark colors and black, it helps. In other words, if you work in design, illustration, photography, advertising, film and video production, it helps.
The question is whether the benefits of a new machine are compelling enough. There are pluses and minuses, and the fact that we can't opt out from glossy is a definite minus. So if you are iffy about upgrading, you won't, or you'll wait for some other feature to clinch the deal for you in the next update.
By imm22 at 2008-10-15
I've made de following calculations, and conclude that in the first image we can see the future macbook 17" already in manufacturing
By imm22 at 2008-10-15
Please take in consideration that I only want to proof that a BIGGER MACBOOK pro in on the way. It can even be bigger that the 17" (Personally I don't think that), the only variable is the 100mm of the space bar key.
What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.
Yes, sorta like I need the power of a MacBook Pro but would rather a smaller screen, so a 12" MacBook Pro would be perfect for me. They'd sell a ton of those too.
More choice is always a good thing...
Oh and my $.02 on glossy - the biggest problem with glossy is this quote from Apple: "You offset the reflection by the brightness." This DOES work; however, guess what part of a laptop sucks the most power? The display backlight is the main culprit. This is why you can get considerably longer battery life by turning down the backlight on your LCD. If Apple were to do extended-life batteries or something along those lines to compensate, it'd be fine. As it stands, I am happy with my last-gen non-glossy 15" MBP.
What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.
I agree! Paying 2 grand for a reasonable sized screen is silly, my mom bought a pc with a 15" screen for $650, not a macbook pro but it goes to show that apple can afford it.
As avid readers may recall, this isn't the first time that a 17-inch MacBook Pro missed the first boat out of China.
According to "Sir" Steve, they ship them here on planes. First Class, no doubt.
Now that it's not locked with the others, I would expect late March, early April. Apple has updated their 17" and other pro computer models a few times in the previous years in that time frame. It might be something new to show off at NAB. If they continue their previous 24 month product cycle on Final Cut, Final Cut Studio should be available at that time.
Apple didn't have a booth at this year's NAB, but I think that's in part because they didn't have anything new to show off, there's no point in spending millions to show off the previous year's products. But FCS 3, a new 17" pro notebook, maybe Final Cut Server 1.5 is probably enough to make it worth a booth there next year.
That's exactly what I'm thinking, it makes the most sense. Maybe by then the mac pro will have display port on it's stock card and the 20 and 30 inch displays will see a refresh to the new enclosure at the same time.
"Apple's next-gen 17-inch MacBook Pro due in a few months"
Grrr....That sounds more like "Macworld" than this year.
I need a 17 for the video work I do, the HD native res and the screen real estate. I really can't see paying $3K for the current model, with its somewhat flimsy case, and old GPU, especially since the Pro apps use the GPU so much. And I'm hoping that Apple will wise up and make the 17 faster than the 15 inch, rather than just use the extra space for larger speakers
Oh, and please, keep the anti-glare. Glossy == evil.
You aren't really supposed to be doing crucial color work in a bright room any way. You are supposed to be in a low lit setting. So that the ambient light around you doesn't bias your eye.
The CPU is usually faster in the 17". But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.
But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.
Dear TenoBell & Friends
I thought Intel was presently shipping 3.06GHz mobile processors. I'm certain those processors are being advertised on Lenovo's site.
I thought that if Intel was letting the other hardware vendors have 3.06, Apple would be the first to ship a notebook with something faster than that as part of an exclusive arrangement with Intel.
Believe it or not, I'm still getting by with my seven-year-old 1GHz 15" PowerBook G4, but I have a 3GHz dual-quad Mac Pro with 9GB of RAM and a 30" Cinema Display for editing images. I browse and write with the PowerBook and leave the heavy lifting to the Mac Pro.
But my wife and I plan to upgrade to the new 17" when it's available. John Gruber's hunch is that the 17" might be phased out, and that scared me. I'd like to have a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro if such existed.
--Jaddie
But my wife and I plan to upgrade to the new 17" when it's available. John Gruber's hunch is that the 17" might be phased out, and that scared me. I'd like to have a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro if such existed.
Indeed, I was a tad worried that the 17" (or any larger laptop) was being End of Life'd altoghether, hence my avid interest in this thread. My 1 GHz TiBk still works fine, but it is PowerPC and the GPU doesn't work even with older versions of Motion, nor the CPU with newer Intel Only Mac Aps. A 17" is what I need, so the lack of one was a real disapointment, and we can expect that the won't be coming any earlier than December, since some products for November were announced on Tuesday. So, it seems highly possible they'll hold out until Macworld SF in January rather than a December release, but one can hope.
Indeed, I was a tad worried that the 17" (or any larger laptop) was being End of Life'd altoghether, hence my avid interest in this thread. My 1 GHz TiBk still works fine, but it is PowerPC and the GPU doesn't work even with older versions of Motion, nor the CPU with newer Intel Only Mac Aps. A 17" is what I need, so the lack of one was a real disapointment, and we can expect that the won't be coming any earlier than December, since some products for November were announced on Tuesday. So, it seems highly possible they'll hold out until Macworld SF in January rather than a December release, but one can hope.
Take a look at this post
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=25
I guess it's not been a huge issue for me, certainly not anywhere near the problem everyone keeps griping about...
es
Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?
If you mean people that absolutely *hate* the glossy displays, then it sure sounds like it. What do you mean by "need" anyway? If you mean, they would be unable to get their work done, the answer is probably "no." OTOH, if you mean people that hate having to deal with excessive reflections and are sensitive to them, there are probably hordes. I am one of them. I want the choice and as a consumer it's an easy one for me. Even though I generally love Apple's hardware, the glossy-only choice is a showstopper for me. I also want 8 GiB of RAM and a 500+ GB hard drive. I have 4 GiB and 320 GB now. I would like to see a blu-ray drive, too. I further think that the new MacBook Pro models are much uglier than the old ones. I *hate* the black keyboard and the black border around the display. Fortunately I can hold off for now and if I don't like the 17" MacBook Pro early next year and it doesn't have a matte display I'll probably go with another 15" laptop that I can run Ubuntu Linux on. Yes, I am one of the tiny minority who, apart from the nice hardware, bought a Mac because I use and love Unix.
But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.
There's a Core 2 Duo T9800 planned for Q1 2009 and it will run at 2.93GHz with FSB 1066 and 6MB cache, $530. T means 35W, cool enough for any MBP. There is also a 2.66 model planned as well as speedbumps/price cuts planned for Q1 2009 (which could mean late march 2009). There is aslo a 35W quad-core at 2.00GHz in the works ($530?).
So plenty of possible speedbump for a Spring update of all mobile/hybrid Macs.
Yes, sorta like I need the power of a MacBook Pro but would rather a smaller screen, so a 12" MacBook Pro would be perfect for me. They'd sell a ton of those too.
More choice is always a good thing...
Oh and my $.02 on glossy - the biggest problem with glossy is this quote from Apple: "You offset the reflection by the brightness." This DOES work; however, guess what part of a laptop sucks the most power? The display backlight is the main culprit. This is why you can get considerably longer battery life by turning down the backlight on your LCD. If Apple were to do extended-life batteries or something along those lines to compensate, it'd be fine. As it stands, I am happy with my last-gen non-glossy 15" MBP.
Yes, I can just hear my grandmother now if she were to watch the MacBook video. "What's that little line across the screen?"
It's funny, the people that like the glossy screens say it's not a problem and usually reference ambient lighting as the culprit of glare. They often say, "move it, and you won't have a problem." But Apple, in it's advertisements with glossy screens does not make an effort to reduce the effect of the glare. Instead they make an effort to be SURE that you see that glare effect on the screen (above). They want to be sure we know that that screen is so shiny you can practically use it as a mirror. In fact, one could almost say that this is so important to Apple that they are willing to sacrifice the promotion of screen quality and clarity, just to show that the screen is shiny. As you can see, to the left of the "shine line" above we see clarity and to the right we see washed out color.
I really like these new MacBooks, but Apple still has some work to do. Just my thoughts.
There's a Core 2 Duo T9800 planned for Q1 2009 and it will run at 2.93GHz with FSB 1066 and 6MB cache, $530. T means 35W, cool enough for any MBP. There is also a 2.66 model planned as well as speedbumps/price cuts planned for Q1 2009 (which could mean late march 2009). There is aslo a 35W quad-core at 2.00GHz in the works ($530?).
Dear mjteix & Friends
What's the fastest processor available for mobile computers right now?
Here's a screenshot from Lenovo's site relating to a ThinkPad configuration. I thought 3.06GHz was the fastest available non-quad-core chip.
--Jaddie
I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.
To get a better representation of what the colors will look like when printed. Pantone colors look very different on the two displays, but the printer calibration is easier on the non glossy screen.