Apple releases new MacBook Pros with Intel Core i7, i5 processors

13468919

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 366
    q dudeq dude Posts: 16member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by amac4me View Post


    Well, if you look at the "economics" of information goods (bits), you'll see that the marginal cost of selling a digital copy of say a movie, song, etc is essentially zero. Store it once, sell it numerous time. The scale is enormous. Thus, it's more economical for companies to sell a digital version over a physical version. In terms of scale, there are higher returns. The consumer ends up paying less because the price point is lower but the company selling the good actually makes more per unit.



    Sadly, however, digital copies available for download currently do not offer the audio/video quality of a blu-ray disc. Until parity is reached, I for one have no interest.
  • Reply 102 of 366
    saschkesaschke Posts: 67member
    I am currently in possession of a 15inch unibody Macbook Pro with 256MB RAM 9600M GT graphics. What do you think? How does this GPU fare against the 320M built into the new 13" machines? If performance is somehow the same, I might end up selling my current machine and getting a new 13" model. As far as screen real estate goes, my 24" LED Cinema Display gets the job done anyhow...
  • Reply 103 of 366
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    It's confusing that they don't specify that the i5 and i7 chips are dual core and not quad, I didn't know which it was until I read it here.



    And it is disappointing that there is no option on any of the laptops for quad core, they should have at least one machine that competes at the high end if they want to call these things 'pro".
  • Reply 104 of 366
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by amac4me View Post


    Well, if you look at the "economics" of information goods (bits), you'll see that the marginal cost of selling a digital copy of say a movie, song, etc is essentially zero. Store it once, sell it numerous time. The scale is enormous. Thus, it's more economical for companies to sell a digital version over a physical version. In terms of scale, there are higher returns. The consumer ends up paying less because the price point is lower but the company selling the good actually makes more per unit.



    Apple is clearly a middle-man, look at iTunes, look at iPhone/iPad apps. Apple is platform provider that bring together content creators with those who want to consume content be it songs, movies, apps, etc ...



    If Apple were to adopt BluRay, they would have done it by now. The fact that they haven't demonstrates that they do not want to undermine their ability to distribute content and take their cut from the transaction.



    I'm not questioning the "economics of information goods". What I am questioning is the quality of those information goods. I've said this before, but why would I want to buy a given album from iTunes at 256k when I can buy the same album on CD for roughly the same price and get better quality in the process? Also, why would I want to buy the HD-Lite version of a movie from iTunes when I can buy the Blu-ray version with much better audio and video quality for roughly the same price? I understand that the HD-Lite version is "good enough" for the masses, but for me, it isn't. I used to work in the custom A/V integration business and I can tell you, the average customer is not up to dealing with the logistics of digital downloads. They just want to buy a disc (I'm talking about movies here) from Amazon or Target or rent one from Netflix and stick it in their player and watch it. They're going to need to come up with a better delivery method (kinda like the AppleTV), if they want mainstream adoption.



    Sorry for going off-topic.
  • Reply 105 of 366
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a Martin View Post


    Then they can get a MacBook (not Pro).



    "Raw computing power is a very small market. Most folks just want a nice looking, light machine that lasts a long time while doing word processing at the coffee shop."





    Naw. They will get a MacBook Pro. It looks nicer.



    Battery life trumps performance for 90% of users. They don't care about number crunching spreadsheets and videos.
  • Reply 106 of 366
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    After waiting months for Apple to finally update their MacBook Pro line to catch up in performance with Dell and HP, they finally release new models. However, while they finally went i5 and i7, they only used the new dual core models. You can't even get a quad core version as a BTO. Considering you've been able to buy a quad core laptop from Dell and HP since 2009, this is a pretty big let down.



    Those quad cores were either c2q or desktop model i5/i7 chips. The battery life of those systems was pretty awful. The new i5/i7 Apple systems all have hyper-threading active so they are virtual quad cores.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macbuff View Post


    Anyone notice the "antiglare" option on the high res 15" display? It's not advertised at "matte" - so what is it?





    If you click "Learn More" it does refer to the antiglare option as a matte display. A lot of folks probably see "matte display" and have no idea what that means, but everyone understands "antiglare screen".
  • Reply 107 of 366
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    It's confusing that they don't specify that the i5 and i7 chips are dual core and not quad, I didn't know which it was until I read it here.



    And it is disappointing that there is no option on any of the laptops for quad core, they should have at least one machine that competes at the high end if they want to call these things 'pro".



    Both of these sections mention they are dual core, not quad.



    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/performance.html



    Turbo Boost.



    Intel Core i5 and Core i7 processors also feature Turbo Boost. If you?re using processor-intensive applications like Aperture 3 or Final Cut Pro that would benefit from an extra performance kick, Turbo Boost dynamically increases the speed of one or both cores, taking a 2.66GHz MacBook Pro all the way up to 3.33GHz.



    Hyper-Threading.



    Built-in Hyper-Threading allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core, so Mac OS X recognizes four virtual cores instead of just two. When you?re running multiple applications at once, the Core i5 and Core i7 processors spread tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores ? so you can get more done, faster.
  • Reply 108 of 366
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    Two interesting points for buyers:



    1) The price difference between the Core i7 17" and Core i7 15" is very slim if you're going to pay $100 for a higher rez panel in the 15". There's even more rez and you have a expresscard slot in exchange for a SD slot, $200 (for the i7 upgrade) and a little weight and size.



    2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.











    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...e.25085.0.html



    Given both have turbo boost and hyperthreading and both are dual-core I'm getting the i5 unless MBP specific benchmarks show a clear advantage for the i7 MBPs.



    17" vs 15" I don't know yet.
  • Reply 109 of 366
    amac4meamac4me Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    I'm not questioning the "economics of information goods". What I am questioning is the quality of those information goods. I've said this before, but why would I want to buy a given album from iTunes at 256k when I can buy the same album on CD for roughly the same price and get better quality in the process? Also, why would I want to buy the HD-Lite version of a movie from iTunes when I can buy the Blu-ray version with much better audio and video quality for roughly the same price? I understand that the HD-Lite version is "good enough" for the masses, but for me, it isn't. I used to work in the custom A/V integration business and I can tell you, the average customer is not up to dealing with the logistics of digital downloads. They just want to buy a disc (I'm talking about movies here) from Amazon or Target or rent one from Netflix and stick it in their player and watch it. They're going to need to come up with a better delivery method (kinda like the AppleTV), if they want mainstream adoption.



    Sorry for going off-topic.



    I hear ya, it's good enough for the masses not the movie buffs or audiophiles. Over the long-term, quality of digital versions (via download) will increase. The key constraints are bandwidth and the terms imposed by the content owners.
  • Reply 110 of 366
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freethinker View Post


    complaining is not conversation.



    You're right.



    No 1080p means no high-def video while on long trips. Why did they use a non-standard vertical resolution? Would it have been worse to include a real HD screen?



    And I presume that SATA is used internally. What is the harm of making a USB port into an external dual-use USB/eSATA port? Are there any current backup solutions that would be as fast as eSATA? Was there any good reason to exclude an eSATA port?
  • Reply 111 of 366
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by msu586 View Post


    I hear that! I want to stay with a 13", but I don't want to upgrade from a four year old core 2 to a core 2 duo. The core 2 duos are yesterday's technology. \




    Battery life. You don't need a faster chip, but you need 10 hours between plug-ins.
  • Reply 112 of 366
    Try to decide if the 1680x1050 High Resolution screen is worth the extra $100. I like the glossy...



    Thoughts? Advice? I'll be getting a low-end 15" most likely.
  • Reply 113 of 366
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by amac4me View Post


    I hear ya, it's good enough for the masses not the movie buffs or audiophiles. Over the long-term, quality of digital versions (via download) will increase. The key constraints are bandwidth and the terms imposed by the content owners.



    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. When they've bumped up the quality levels sufficiently, I'll embrace it. After all, the idea of logging into a server and downloading a new release which I can they play easily on my TV is very appealing.
  • Reply 114 of 366
    ff11ff11 Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by allblue View Post


    Released within a day of each other:



    The 2.53 GHz, 17-inch MacBook Pro $2,299



    Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection $2,599



    Just sayin'.



    MS Office Home and Student Edition $149.95 (Business Edition $399.95)

    iWork only $79.00
  • Reply 115 of 366
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    No USB 3.0 or eSATA. Just a performance bump.



    any time they slip something in under the cover of darkness, you know it's only a performance bump.



    it's a respectable bump, I would have liked to have seen the open PCI in the high end 15" so folks could have the option of esata. and if they were going to go 'high resolution' why stop at 1050. give us true 1080 and then shock and delight folks with native support for playback of BR discs from an external in the next OS pointdate
  • Reply 116 of 366
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    However, I doubt few coffee shop users are looking to drop $2,000 to $2,500 on a laptop as it's serious overkill for their needs.



    The new MBPs don't seem like overkill to me. They will do everything that the typical Mac buyer would want, very smoothly, for hours on end.



    If you want a technical powerhouse, the MBP is not the machine for you.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    As such, it's a disappointment to see them allow Dell, HP, and company move so far ahead of them in performance. We haven't seen this kind of performance gap in the professional laptop space since Apple was using PowerPC chips.



    Get used to it. Apple is now a portable device company, and in portable devices, the raw performance need only be "good enough for most uses". Other considerations, like weight and battery life are extremely more important.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KBeat View Post


    basic performance is a huge part of my ability to do my job efficiently. Time is literally money in the creative field. When you're importing a couple thousand 21 megapixel RAW photos, and running batch changes to them in Aperture, we're talking a significant amount of time spent waiting for the computer.... We need, don't want, a top of the line performing laptop from Apple.



    There are plenty of choices in high-powered laptops. But none of them are as thin and light.
  • Reply 117 of 366
    djames42djames42 Posts: 298member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HMayes View Post


    USB 3.0 would be ok. Do you really think adding eSATA is even on Apple's roadmap for their portables? If you do you may want to look elsewhere. It's just not going to happen because they have no good reason to add it.



    Then again I guess you had to find SOMETHING to complain about.



    Possibly not, but if they'd give us back the ExpressCard slot, then we'd have the choice... I get that not many people used it, but an EC SD reader is under $20, and those of us who did buy cards have come to rely on them. My first-gen 15" MBP is due for an upgrade, and as a mobile user I almost always have my ExpressCard 3G in place. As such, I've now got to decide between the 17", or spending another $200 to replace my 3G card with a USB device.



    Hopefully this doesn't come across as a useless rant - to me, it's a very real one. A 'pro' laptop without a card slot seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.
  • Reply 118 of 366
    rbonnerrbonner Posts: 635member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by andyapple View Post


    There are 185,000 apps in the App Store and these MacBook Pros can't run any of them!



    Unless I can install any app I want to on my portable it is not a real computer.



    No touch screen, no accelerometer, no option for 3G... No deal!







    Nice trolling, bet you will catch something. And thanks, just realized that my macbook is not a phone, I had not put that together yet.



    All kidding aside, it would be cool if the mac could run my iPhone apps, but I didn't expect that in a hardware bump, but maybe in the next version of OSX.
  • Reply 119 of 366
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    Sure, I carry my MBP around, but it's mainly from desk to desk, plugged into the wall, only occasionally using it for train/plane/bus travel.



    I use Vectorworks and need raw power for my CAD & 3D work. I'd be willing to sacrifice the giant battery if it meant getting a quad-core processor!



    Very few Apple customers have your needs. The light weight and the battery life are the most important things in a Mobile Device. Everything else is secondary.



    If you need raw performance, there are desktop solutions for you for the time being. It is unknown whether Apple will ever make more high-powered machines, now that they are a mobile device company.
  • Reply 120 of 366
    bkerkaybkerkay Posts: 138member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by amac4me View Post


    I hear ya, it's good enough for the masses not the movie buffs or audiophiles. Over the long-term, quality of digital versions (via download) will increase. The key constraints are bandwidth and the terms imposed by the content owners.



    True, some people want better quality. Also the convenience of downloads is great. I think the issue is (when looking at pricing), is what you get. The quality that is downloaded from iTune is not that bad. The main issue is pricing. Like rob55 said, you can buy much better quality for almost the same price. The quality from iTunes for most people is enough, but what would make it even better and more popular is if the pricing was lower. Look what you can get from Netflix for $9. And if you think about it Apple is competing with that.... and they are losing.



    Of course we all know the studios are determining the pricing, but they are shooting themselves in the foot. If they lowered the prices, they would sell a lot more movies. I know I would rent a lot more via iTunes if that was the case.
Sign In or Register to comment.