or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple shipping MacBook Pros with faster processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple shipping MacBook Pros with faster processors - Page 4

post #121 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell

BRussell: Jeezus, I just wish Apple would actually announce what they have so customers aren't ordering blind.

You ordered the first set of laptops announced on a new platform that were still in beta state when announced during a known transition period where Apple will be announcing new products...AFTER knowing that Apple put out a new version of the iMac that they had only just recently updated...

Your very questionable assumption of thinking you knew what "top of the line" would be on release isn't Apple's problem. Its yours for making a very dumb assumption. They could have easily released a new version of the MBP with a larger screen and the 2.16 chip in the intervening timeframe.

If you can't stand a little change IN YOUR FAVOR don't buy a Mac right now. Whining about change during a transition year makes you appear like a total moron.

Vinea
post #122 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It's just that the comparisons have to be of like units for a starter. You wouldn't make a comparison between the iBook and the PowerBook, because they aren't comparable.

It's like making a comparison betwween a two seater and a sedan. The two seater IS smaller, but it's a different kind of car, with a different purpose.

Compare like to like.

The MacBook Pro isn't a notebook. It's a laptop. Compare it to other laptops.

That's funny. Perhaps Apple should rename it the MacTop Pro.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
When comparing thicknesses, the thinnest area isn't the relevant part. It would be fine to say that the Sony is from .9 to 1.3 inches thick, compared to the Apple, which is 1.05 inches thick.

Which is what I actually said. Though Apple actually claim 1.0.

However, the blinkers are back up. Even in the same post the IBM X60 and T60 figures I quoted got missed. And moving the goalposts by saying it's a notebook not a laptop is irrelevant. They both have 1.83Ghz Core Duo processors. Cramming a Core Duo into something smaller than the MacBook Pro doesn't count? huh? That's surely even more impressive. The X60 is a great laptop (sorry, notebook), like the T41 before it. Core Duos in something smaller and thinner than the 12.1 Powerbook - that's impressive.

The point of this wasn't to compare one laptop to another. I'll repeat - I'M NOT COMPARING. Kim just said there wasn't anything thinner than the MacBook Pro with a Core Duo in. That's patently wrong - there's three models I've quoted which are thinner and/or smaller even.

Anyway, I'm arguing with melgross again, which is a fruitless exercise as you're never ever wrong and no-one else is ever allowed to be right and you'll move the goal posts continually till we give up. \
post #123 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by Slotracer152
I understand. You have small hands. You know what they say about guys with small hands...

We're less likely to hit the wrong button and blow up the planet?

Or is that just Americans?
post #124 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
As I said, 0.9" is thinner than 1.0".

But 1.3" is thicker than 1.0".
post #125 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign

However, the blinkers are back up. Even in the same post the IBM X60 and T60 figures I quoted got missed. And moving the goalposts by saying it's a notebook not a laptop is irrelevant. They both have 1.83Ghz Core Duo processors. Cramming a Core Duo into something smaller than the MacBook Pro doesn't count? huh? That's surely even more impressive. The X60 is a great laptop (sorry, notebook), like the T41 before it. Core Duos in something smaller and thinner than the 12.1 Powerbook - that's impressive.

The point of this wasn't to compare one laptop to another. I'll repeat - I'M NOT COMPARING. Kim just said there wasn't anything thinner than the MacBook Pro with a Core Duo in. That's patently wrong - there's three models I've quoted which are thinner and/or smaller even.

Anyway, I'm arguing with melgross again, which is a fruitless exercise as you're never ever wrong and no-one else is ever allowed to be right and you'll move the goal posts continually till we give up. \

I don't believe the 0.8" Lenovo ThinkPad is available above 1.83GHz...sorry.

Quit fuckin' around and show us a 2.1GHz computer that is thinner than Apple's. And one that doesn't have a variable height door stop wedge shaped body. Else stfu.
post #126 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I don't believe the 0.8" Lenovo ThinkPad is available above 1.83GHz...sorry.

Quit fuckin' around and show us a 2.1GHz computer that is thinner than Apple's. And one that doesn't have a variable height door stop wedge shaped body. Else STFU.

Another goal post moved eh.
post #127 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Another goal post moved eh.

Yeah you gotta stop movin' them. Like I said, stfu if you can't compare apple to apples and oranges to oranges.

You're the one that is using dubious methods to prove that Acer had a thinner laptop.

And you're the one that was complaining about Apple's computers having lower clock rates. I'm the one handing your ass by showing you that Apple managed to cram a 2.1GHz Core Duo in a 1" thin enclosure and nobody else can.
post #128 of 156
It is sort of amusing to see the complaints about Apple updating their product too quickly.

"Apple...damned if we, damned if we don't."

post #129 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It is sort of amusing to see the complaints about Apple updating their product too quickly.

"Apple...damned if we, damned if we don't."


Stupid crappy Yonah powered MBP's, where are our Merom ones
post #130 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Money was not an issue, and I wanted the top-end model to ensure it lasted as long as possible

Please explain to me how a 2.0 GHz CoreDuo's lifesapn will be less than the 1.8 GHz CoreDuo you had ordered.
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated,...
Reply
post #131 of 156
I think Apple geeks everywhere will have to adjust to the fact that they will longer have the top of the line laptop for more than one day. No more 12 month of struting around knowing you have the top of the line.

Processor speeds will get bumped when Intel releases them. No longer will it be a big to-do about faster chips every 6-12-18 months.

With Intel delivering improvements on a weekly-monthly basis, it really plays havoc on Apple Guy's perception since it was skewed with slow update cycles.

Bottom line: In today's Apple world, buying a 2 GHz MBP will mean the computer is the latest and greatest for today only. You will have to adjust and realize that processor speeds aren't everything because they only last for the now (and it will be short times from here on out).

Welcome to Intel and welcome to the new and improved Kool-Aid stand...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #132 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That's funny. Perhaps Apple should rename it the MacTop Pro.



Which is what I actually said. Though Apple actually claim 1.0.

However, the blinkers are back up. Even in the same post the IBM X60 and T60 figures I quoted got missed. And moving the goalposts by saying it's a notebook not a laptop is irrelevant. They both have 1.83Ghz Core Duo processors. Cramming a Core Duo into something smaller than the MacBook Pro doesn't count? huh? That's surely even more impressive. The X60 is a great laptop (sorry, notebook), like the T41 before it. Core Duos in something smaller and thinner than the 12.1 Powerbook - that's impressive.

The point of this wasn't to compare one laptop to another. I'll repeat - I'M NOT COMPARING. Kim just said there wasn't anything thinner than the MacBook Pro with a Core Duo in. That's patently wrong - there's three models I've quoted which are thinner and/or smaller even.

Anyway, I'm arguing with melgross again, which is a fruitless exercise as you're never ever wrong and no-one else is ever allowed to be right and you'll move the goal posts continually till we give up. \

If you don't keep making incorrect statements, then you wouldn't have to.

You seem to be alone in this. And I don't notice you ever giving up a point. You are as stubborn as anyone hereand that includes me!
post #133 of 156
If it was such a huge redundancy/life issue no-one would buy any yonah MBP with the superior merom 6-8 months away. As it stands now with the rejigg = more for less = YAY.

In 3 months time the 1.8ghz will be 2ghz, the 2ghz will be 2.16ghz with the optional upgrade to 2.33ghz.
post #134 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
Bottom line: In today's Apple world, buying a 2 GHz MBP will mean the computer is the latest and greatest for today only. You will have to adjust and realize that processor speeds aren't everything because they only last for the now (and it will be short times from here on out).

No, the real bottom line is this:

Every 3 months we'll have to read a thread entitled 'I AM INFURIATED'. It will probably be started by one of two people.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #135 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
oh shit... I almost forgot...find me a computer that isn't thicker than the MacBook Pro.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Yeah but where is that magical computer that isn't thicker than the MacBook Pro?

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Quit fuckin' around and show us a 2.1GHz computer that is thinner than Apple's. And one that doesn't have a variable height door stop wedge shaped body. Else stfu.

The implication that you are moving the goalposts is definitely not unfounded. 3.5 pages in and you start mentioning processor speed.

What's next? What if someone finds a 2.16 GHz Core Duo laptop thinner than the MacBook. Will you ask them to find another aluminum-clad laptop that's thinner than the MacBook? One that runs OSX? One that has a magnetic power cord? One that ships from Cupertino?

Give it up now. You were handed your ass when he produced the Lenovo T60.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #136 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by audiopollution
The implication that you are moving the goalposts is definitely not unfounded. 3.5 pages in and you start mentioning processor speed.

What's next? What if someone finds a 2.16 GHz Core Duo laptop thinner than the MacBook. Will you ask them to find another aluminum-clad laptop that's thinner than the MacBook? One that runs OSX? One that has a magnetic power cord? One that ships from Cupertino?

Give it up now. You were handed your ass when he produced the Lenovo T60.

Come on now...just because I didn't specifically mention that it had to have equal processors it doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

Else you could include any fucking processor you want and include subnotebooks in the comparison. The ThinkPad X32 is 33 millimeters thin...do you want a cookie? You just found a ridiculously thin laptop. Of course, it's got an old Pentium M 745 in it.

Someone that is moving goalposts is someone that is claiming that the Acer laptop is thinner because the thinnest part of the laptop is 0.9 inche while the other end is 1.3".

If you give up on logic then, yeah, you can make bogus claims like the Acer is thinner and the X60 is thinner even though it has a mid-to-bottom-end Core Duo or that the X32 is thinner even though it doesn't even have a Core Duo.

Like I said, Apple to Apple comparison is implied. The context of the discussion made that some things were implied. If you or aegisdesign couldn't see that, then you don't even belong in this conversion.

Ok, here goes again: can someone find a laptop with the same top-end processor as the MacBook Pro (CORE DUO 2.16GHz) that is thinner or equal thickness as the MacBook Pro? Excluded from the comparison is any additional feature or price.

Did I miss something? Personal attack deleted - JL

BTW, the T60 is > 1"...I think you meant X60.
post #137 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If you give up on logic then, yeah, you can make bogus claims like the Acer is thinner and the X60 is thinner even though it has a mid-to-bottom-end Core Duo or that the X32 is thinner even though it doesn't even have a Core Duo.

Sony, not Acer. Never mentioned the X32. And since when is a 1.83Ghz Core Duo mid to bottom end? Up until a few days ago that was the top end for the MacBook Pro.


Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ok, here goes again: can someone find a laptop with the same top-end processor as the MacBook Pro (CORE DUO 2.16GHz) that is thinner or equal thickness as the MacBook Pro?

ok, with the goalposts moved again, I'll admit defeat, the thinnest I could find was .2 of an inch thicker with a 2.16Ghz chip

Do you think perhaps IBM or the other manufacturers won't follow suit though?

btw. the T60 is 1.0 inches thick.

http://www-131.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/st...catalogId=-840


It's quite hilarious that when you do a search for 'core duo inch' you get pages and pages of Apple results. Are Apple users that bothered about the size of their laptops?
post #138 of 156
Size matters
post #139 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by dutch pear
Size matters

Not to Kim, it's thickness and how hot it gets.
post #140 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
BTW, the T60 is > 1"...I think you meant X60. Or did you have no clue what you were saying?

No, it's not. Just give it up. Now.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #141 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
there's three models I've quoted which are thinner and/or smaller even.

TWO. You've quoted two which are thinner, the first you listed was thicker.

Or do you still have the blinders on?
post #142 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
TWO. You've quoted two which are thinner, the first you listed was thicker.

Or do you still have the blinders on?

see "and/or" in the sentence you quoted and read again.
post #143 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
see "and/or" in the sentence you quoted and read again.

This discussion has been about THINNER since the beginning. So now YOU're trying to move the goalposts?
post #144 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
This discussion has been about THINNER since the beginning. So now YOU're trying to move the goalposts?

Zzzzzzzz

Enough already. I don't really care.
post #145 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Zzzzzzzz

Enough already. I don't really care.

If that means you're done making inaccurate statements about the respective sizes of machines, good to hear.
post #146 of 156
Ok...just to clear things up because I see audiopollution is flexing his moderator muscles at me and I want to get this out in case he temps ban me.

I wrote this to audiopollution but I probably should have wrote it here:

(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) It seems like for some reason it was implied that the processor was a Core Duo but not implied that the clockspeed mattered? When I was talking about finding a computer that was thinner than Apple's MacBook Pro, I didn't mean "go find a computer that's thinner no matter which processor is inside the computer"...that's way too broad. There are tons of subnotebook with low-voltage Pentium-M chips that are thinner than Apple's MacBook Pro. But use your fucking logic people, the example had to clearly had to be inline with what was being offered.

(ad hominem argument deleted - JL)

It was clear from the discussion that people were amazed that Apple managed to cram a 2GHz and 2.16GHz Core Duo into a 1" thick enclosure. And that they were being conservative in case the case wouldn't be able to handle > 1.83GHz chips. Why the fuck else would Apple not include these chips?

We could sit around and compare 33mm thick 1.5GHz Pentium M laptops or 0.8 inch thick 1.83GHz Core Duo laptops with the 2.16GHz MacBook Pro all day but that would be a pretty shitty comparison with no point.

You do want to have a point, do you audiopollution and aegisdesign? I hope so.

(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) You won the 'thinnest' laptop argument. Or even better, the 1.83GHz 1" MacBook Pro is a shitty deal because, you can get an even thinner one at that speed. There you go. Happy? Did you guys have a point?

(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) I ask for a thinner laptop and make no mention of what processor must be in the laptop thinking it's implied and someone shows me a Core Duo notebook that is thinner (implied: Core Duo) but at 1.83GHz (not implied: clock rate)...if you're gonna play the semantic game, be consistent and pretend like nothing was implied and show me a super-thin laptop running at 1.2GHz or something.

edit: removed a double negation. :P
post #147 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Did you guys have a point?

Did you?

Perhaps you'd avoid all of this confusion in the future by not being so vague when issuing a challenge. All of the 'implied' spec targets make your argument hard to follow and impossible for anyone else to win.

Semantics, indeed.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #148 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by audiopollution
Did you?

Perhaps you'd avoid all of this confusion in the future by not being so vague when issuing a challenge. All of the 'implied' spec targets make your argument hard to follow and impossible for anyone else to win.

Semantics, indeed.

Perhaps. I had more of a point than you ever did, my friend...the point being the ability to offer a 2.16GHz chip inside a 1" thick enclosure.

What was your point again? Enlighten us. Or are you scared to acknowledge that you didn't have one except argue for the sake of arguing?

I issued a challenge and assumed some people in this forum were smart enough to keep it in line with the conversation. If some of them wanted to twist it into a challenge with zero point whatsoever...I don't care. I reissued a clearer challenge for those that actually care.

If *you* don't care, stay out of the conversation since you're increasing the noise to signal ratio, audiopollution.
post #149 of 156
Quote:
Ok...just to clear things up because I see audiopollution is flexing his moderator muscles at me and I want to get this out in case he temps ban me.

Actually, if he doesn't temp-ban you, I will.

I do not going to spend my time deleting any more of your personal attacks in this thread. If you do not understand what the definition of a personal attack is, please look up argumentum ad hominem.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #150 of 156
Posts about forum moderation are against the posting guidelines.
post #151 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Posts about forum moderation are against the posting guidelines.



Don't tempt me.
post #152 of 156
(desperately tries to throw together a joke about the Olympics and thin ice)
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #153 of 156
MacBook Pros are shipping! See my other post.
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 (8GB RAM, 1TB HD)
iPhone 4 32GB, iPhone 3GS 32GB, iPhone 2.5G 8GB
Reply
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 (8GB RAM, 1TB HD)
iPhone 4 32GB, iPhone 3GS 32GB, iPhone 2.5G 8GB
Reply
post #154 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
(desperately tries to throw together a joke about the Olympics and thin ice)

How thin?
post #155 of 156
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
How thin?

Thin enough to talk to the fishies.
post #156 of 156
I have a PB 15" and have played with an X41T and Z60M. I really thought the Z60M was going to be a nice machine, but I was disappointed when I opened the box and saw how big/bulky/thick it was. I put it next to my PB and was shocked. I use PC's and MAC's, but I am amazed how ahead Apple was in the design of the PB's. The Ultrasmall Sony Vaio's that are out there have to cramped a keyboard for my liking. I can't find a laptop that beats the 15" PB no matter what OS.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple shipping MacBook Pros with faster processors