or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple's early 2011 Thunderbolt MacBook Pros
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: Apple's early 2011 Thunderbolt MacBook Pros - Page 3

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

Don't pretend you speak for most people - I use it all the time. And guess what? It has to be big enough to fit a CD/DVD into.

And? As long as you still use it every PC vendor should include it? There ate tipping points in technology and you can either be ahead or behind them, but don't pretend they don't exist or that they revolve around your desires.

Guess how Mac devs are downloading an installing Mac OS X Lion? It's all from within the Mac App Store and within SL without having to buy or burn a DVD. I'm sure they will sell a DVD to you people at the caudal end of the technology curve, but likely at a higher price. Your precious DVD drive is going bye-bye and there is nothing you can do about it but bitch and complain.
post #82 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Don't expect MacBook Airs to get Thunderbolt. They don't even backlit keyboards currently.

They don't even hard drive or even DVD drive currently. (we don't stinking verbs)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Thanks for the links. Oh, but your math is off, from their results it's a 4% difference. Still of questionable value when you are adding at 10-15% premium.

I'll still be curious to see direct comparisons using actual systems on real-world tasks. After reading the descriptions of the tests in the links above, it does not appear their tests would include the performance of Turbo Boost since most of their tests seem to saturate all 4 cores in the CPU.

If the 2.3 GHz processor also includes higher Turbo Boost speeds for non-parallelized tasks, that would help better justify the price increase. Apple's online store seems to imply that the faster processor has a higher Turbo Boost speed when it says, "You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to the 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.40GHz." But they don't say anywhere was the limit is for the 2.2 GHz processor.

My bad on the math...

Anyways, Turbo Boost on the 2.2 is 3.30GHz.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50067

I actually just received my 2.2 i7 15" MBP today. I gotta say, It's damn fast. I scored a 5.35 in cinebench and 40fps in the opengl of cb.

I'm very happy with my decision. I just don't think I could possibly notice a different of the other one. I compile all day long, but I still don't think I'd notice it.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #84 of 127
The 15 inch 2 ghz model has only 256 MB video memory.

On the 15 inch 2 ghz model, it costs $100 extra to upgrade from 500 GB 5400 rpm hard drive to 500 GB 7200 rpm.

No 750 GB 7200 rpm hard drive option for any of the models.

7200 rpm hard drives are not available at all for the 13 inch model.
post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by doh123 View Post

Why downgrade? You do know that a DisplayPort is better.. it even can even run higher resolutions than HDMI is capable of. Its only like $15 for a little adapter so you can plug it into HDMI.

And what are you going to display this "higher resolution" on? HDMI and DP will more or less display the same resolution. Also how many of these $15 adapters support audio over DP?
post #86 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

I never understood the obsession with backlit keyboards (some people refusing to buy a laptop because of that). I turn mine off completely, since it's such a gimmick and it loudly advertises "I can't touch type".

Seriously, take some time (about 6 months half hour to hour a day of practice in the evening before sleep) and learn to touch type and reap the benefits for the rest of your life.

Here's an excellent and free online course:

http://www.typing-lessons.org/


Yes, everyone wants to invest 6 months to learn how to be a secretary. Wise up.
post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchelljd View Post

I would be buying a brand new MBP 15" Matte screen, loaded memory, if:

1- it could play Blu-Ray
2- Blu - Ray output could go out via lightnight bolt to HDMI cable.

it is frustrating being an apple consumer, they seem to like to decide what they will allow their consumers to do, instead of letting us decide on our own options.

hmm... maybe a sony Vaio will hit the spot.

Ok, so I love Blu-Ray just as much as the next Blu-Ray fan. I have a meager collection of just over 100 Blu-Ray titles, a PS3, and a standalone player connected to my HT setup. With all that being said, even I am over the "I need Apple to support BluRay on laptops like the PCs do" whining. I purchased an external BluRay for about $130 bucks a few months ago, and it takes all of about 25 minutes to rip a BluRay to my HDD. If I am ever in a situation with my laptop where I cannot connect an external drive, then chance are pretty good that I don't an internal one spinning and eating up battery life, when I could be watching the 1080p digital rip of the same movie using less battery. I can still understand the desire to have Apple support the playback of BR in their OS, I mean come on, there are now rinky dink $500 dells that playback BR. However, there are now decent work arounds for getting high quality 1080p content onto your Mac.
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 View Post

I actually hate Blu-Ray and upper end HD...I can see too much detail and I feel as though I'm watching an amateur production (unless it's animated).

What you are describing sounds more like the effect of 120hz processing on newer HDTVs. They add this artificial processing, that gives everything a "british soap opera" look to it. Most movies are filmed at around 24 frames per second and therefore have a less "live studio audience" look to them.
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Bootable from the Thunderbolt port?

Not yet. This has been noted recently. The idea is for full encrypted backup via timemachine.
post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

They don't even hard drive or even DVD drive currently. (we don't stinking verbs)

Haven't you noticed, Air is light weight ... dvd/cd is like floppy drive ... going, going, gone. The app store offers all the software downloads now. Apple had stopped putting programs on disk for sale in retail.

The beauty of Thunderbird is speed and connectivity with all the legacy ports at the higher speeds of the controller (intel). The idea of every port in the prime machine is going, going, gone also. Just one port, interfaces everything else. Some don't like that approach, but it saves cost and real estate.
post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

Yes, everyone wants to invest 6 months to learn how to be a secretary. Wise up.

Then there is voice to text (voice over) , but then you'd have to learn how to speak properly. AI is not all that intuitive. you might still need a super secretary.

Some of us learned to type in high school... one of the best skills I've ever developed.
post #92 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlfnlsn View Post

I purchased an external BluRay for about $130 bucks a few months ago, and it takes all of about 25 minutes to rip a BluRay to my HDD.

Hey can you give me a link to that external BR device? (I'm assuming that you rip BR movies to a Mac)
95% of your DNA is junk.... or is it?
Reply
95% of your DNA is junk.... or is it?
Reply
post #93 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

And what are you going to display this "higher resolution" on? HDMI and DP will more or less display the same resolution.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Also how many of these $15 adapters support audio over DP?

A surprising number, actually, though you'll need to read the fine print.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

Yes, everyone wants to invest 6 months to learn how to be a secretary. Wise up.

Seriously, if you are going to use a computer you should learn to type. (It's not that difficult.)

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #94 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

My bad on the math...

Anyways, Turbo Boost on the 2.2 is 3.30GHz.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50067

I actually just received my 2.2 i7 15" MBP today. I gotta say, It's damn fast. I scored a 5.35 in cinebench and 40fps in the opengl of cb.

I'm very happy with my decision. I just don't think I could possibly notice a different of the other one. I compile all day long, but I still don't think I'd notice it.

Thanks! I actually found the spec sheet last night, but didn't have a chance to come back here to update my post. The other thing I noticed on the specs is that Intel lists a price difference between the two CPUs at about $200 (obviously, who knows what Apple's actual prices are). Apple charges $250 for the upgrade, so not a total price gouging like on RAM upgrades.

So, $250 gets you 0.1 GHz increase in baseline and Turbo Boots speeds and 8 vs 6 MB L3 cache. Like you, I'm leaning towards "not worth it". It'd be better to take the money and upgrade both the RAM to 8 GB and the HD to a 750 GB/7200 rpm drive, and still have a little change left over.
post #95 of 127
Yah, and on top of that, you can get the 8gb of ram for $100 cheaper from Newegg. I did edu discount, $225 for cpu upgrade (not worth it), $180 for ram upgrade (not worth it). I gotta say, this thing is damn fast. Don't even question the 4% (if that).

If anyone has a 2.30, my 15" 2.2 with 4gb scored in Cinebench: 5.32pt in cpu, 35.2fps in OpenGL!!! That's over half the speed of my 2.66 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro with 8gb ram. I'm impressed.

For a rough comparison... barefeats reported 5.44pt in Cinebench on a 17" 2.3. 3.8% difference, hardly worth it. And it's in a bigger enclosure than my 15". (less heat, possibly more turbo).

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Thanks! I actually found the spec sheet last night, but didn't have a chance to come back here to update my post. The other thing I noticed on the specs is that Intel lists a price difference between the two CPUs at about $200 (obviously, who knows what Apple's actual prices are). Apple charges $250 for the upgrade, so not a total price gouging like on RAM upgrades.

So, $250 gets you 0.1 GHz increase in baseline and Turbo Boots speeds and 8 vs 6 MB L3 cache. Like you, I'm leaning towards "not worth it". It'd be better to take the money and upgrade both the RAM to 8 GB and the HD to a 750 GB/7200 rpm drive, and still have a little change left over.

What price gouging on RAM? Sounds like one of those fallacies that have held over since the days of There is no software for Macs for that crop up from time to time. I remember when the cost of RAM was quite different than what you could get from Newegg, except for the best RAM options they offer, but its been a couple years since it wasnt more advantageous for me to just buy the RAM upgrade from Apple instead of saving a a couple dollars on comparable good quality RAM, having to install it myself, not getting warranty on that RAM from Apple*, and then having to hold on to or throw/give away** a couple of lesser RAM sticks that I know Ill never need.

Something else to consider with the cost from Intel. Those are per 1000 unit pricing. Apple does get better pricing across the board, but consider that typical unit sales will have more of the cheaper models sold than the more expensive BTO models. That means that Apple will buy more of the 2.2GHz Core-i7s than the 2.3GHz Core-i7s.

Also consider they could easily get such a reduction in price and want to encourage more sales of machines with that processor that they are given an even larger discount for that model to encourage more competitive sales for that speed processor for comparative notebooks, and therefore charge a little more for the BTO option to make up for that introductory price. This isnt just common, its the way it works.

On top of that, if they had to buy x-many of one chip to get a certain price they might have to charge more or less to optimize their revenue, profit and unit sales. Its a tricky business and we cant possibly know the details without a masters in accounting and lot of time spent go over Apples records.

* Sure, the RAM suppliers offer warranties, and probably lifetime warranties, but they are inconvenient and costly since you have to send them the RAM in the mail on your dime and wait weeks for a replacement. No thank you!

** Sure, I could sell it, but that is more trouble than what I could get for it. No thank you!
post #97 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

What price gouging on RAM? Sounds like one of those fallacies that have held over since the days of “There is no software for Macs” for that crop up from time to time. I remember when the cost of RAM was quite different than what you could get from Newegg, except for the best RAM options they offer, but it’s been a couple years since it wasn’t more advantageous for me to just buy the RAM upgrade from Apple instead of saving a a couple dollars on comparable good quality RAM, having to install it myself, not getting warranty on that RAM from Apple*, and then having to hold on to or throw/give away** a couple of lesser RAM sticks that I know I’ll never need.

Something else to consider with the cost from Intel. Those are per 1000 unit pricing. Apple does get better pricing across the board, but consider that typical unit sales will have more of the cheaper models sold than the more expensive BTO models. That means that Apple will buy more of the 2.2GHz Core-i7s than the 2.3GHz Core-i7s.

Also consider they could easily get such a reduction in price and want to encourage more sales of machines with that processor that they are given an even larger discount for that model to encourage more competitive sales for that speed processor for comparative notebooks, and therefore charge a little more for the BTO option to make up for that introductory price. This isn’t just common, it’s the way it works.

On top of that, if they had to buy x-many of one chip to get a certain price they might have to charge more or less to optimize their revenue, profit and unit sales. It’s a tricky business and we can’t possibly know the details without a masters in accounting and lot of time spent go over Apple’s records.

* Sure, the RAM suppliers offer warranties, and probably lifetime warranties, but they are inconvenient and costly since you have to send them the RAM in the mail on your dime and wait weeks for a replacement. No thank you!

** Sure, I could sell it, but that is more trouble than what I could get for it. No thank you!

Out of 15 years of using computers, I've had 1 set of ram die while in the computer. And that was a computer design flaw that allowed static to enter the ram bay. RAM doesn't die normally, that's why manufacturers give out the lifetime warranty so easily. RAM usually dies when someone zaps it while handling it.

As for the minimal price, you decide if $120 is worth it or not. It's $200 for the 8gb upgrade on a normal bto. It's $80 for the ram from Newegg. To me, $120-$100 (edu discount) is worth more than the convenience of my ram possibly maybe might going out some day.

And factor in if you do sell the ram, that's another $50. Or hold it, and it's still ~$100 in savings.

I don't know about you, but charging 100% over retail, sounds like gouging to me.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

What price gouging on RAM? Sounds like one of those fallacies that have held over since the days of “There is no software for Macs” for that crop up from time to time. I remember when the cost of RAM was quite different than what you could get from Newegg, except for the best RAM options they offer, but it’s been a couple years since it wasn’t more advantageous for me to just buy the RAM upgrade from Apple instead of saving a a couple dollars on comparable good quality RAM, having to install it myself, not getting warranty on that RAM from Apple*, and then having to hold on to or throw/give away** a couple of lesser RAM sticks that I know I’ll never need.

An 8GB MBP upgrade from Apple BTO is $200 and they replace the memory. 8GB from NewEgg costs $120 and you keep the old memory. $80 may not be "gouging" on the scale it used to be, but it's not exactly a value proposition either.

What you'd get for the old memory from eBay or an OWC trade-in isn't enough to justify the hassle, IMO, so I always keep the old memory sticks around if only as a hedge against any future issues (it only takes a few minutes to swap it back in if necessary).

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #99 of 127
Hm, OWC has updated their website saying they now have 8 GM RAM modules for the new MBPs. So upgrade your 2011 MBP to 16 GB for the bargan price of $1599.99!!
post #100 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Hm, OWC has updated their website saying they now have 8 GM RAM modules for the new MBPs. So upgrade your 2011 MBP to 16 GB for the bargan price of $1599.99!!

This is great news! No, I'm not crazy (nor rich) enough to spend $1600 on a memory upgrade, but I wondered if there was some (possibly artificial) reason why these machines maxed out at 8gb of RAM.

Five years ago I purchased the first-gen MBP with 512mb of RAM and immediately upgraded it (thanks to MemoryToGo and about $200; I was not going to pay Apple $800) to 2gb. Within about two years I found it woefully insufficient, particularly since I'm very frequently running a Windows VM alongside some heavy Mac apps (such as Aperture, Final Cut, and/or InDesign). I wondered if, two years from now, I'd find 8gb to be severely limiting.

In a couple of years I imagine the cost of RAM will come down to where those 8gb sticks are no longer $800 each, and upgrading this system to 16gb will be practical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

If anyone has a 2.30, my 15" 2.2 with 4gb scored in Cinebench: 5.32pt in cpu, 35.2fps in OpenGL!!! That's over half the speed of my 2.66 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro with 8gb ram. I'm impressed.

For a rough comparison... barefeats reported 5.44pt in Cinebench on a 17" 2.3. 3.8% difference, hardly worth it. And it's in a bigger enclosure than my 15". (less heat, possibly more turbo).

Out of curiosity I ran Cinebench on my 2.3 15" and received the exact same score. Not, it's not worth the cost (but as I mentioned elsewhere, the only way to walk out of an Apple Store with the HD display on a 15" is to pay for the 2.3).
post #101 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post

This is great news! No, I'm not crazy (nor rich) enough to spend $1600 on a memory upgrade, but I wondered if there was some (possibly artificial) reason why these machines maxed out at 8gb of RAM.

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.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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>
post #103 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

agreed

DO NOT BUY MATTE

TRUST NO ONE



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...#ht_2183wt_907

post #104 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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.
post #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post

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.
post #106 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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 View Post

A surprising number, actually, though you'll need to read the fine print.

What is the number? One is a suprising number
post #107 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #108 of 127
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.
post #109 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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 View Post

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
post #110 of 127
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.

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply
post #111 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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 View Post

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...)

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutykamu View Post

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.
post #113 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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 View Post

(Sorry to have to school you in public like that...)



Excellent, it isn't one, it is two.
post #114 of 127
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.
post #115 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Excellent, it isn't one, it is two.

Which is a damned sight better than the zero you were claiming.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #116 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

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.
post #117 of 127
Sorry 2bl opost
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

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
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #119 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

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.

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply

my way or the highway...

Macbook Pro i7 13" with intel SSD 320 series and 8GB RAM, iPhone 5, iPad 3 (Retina)

Reply
post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Review: Apple's early 2011 Thunderbolt MacBook Pros