Anyone with the current macbooks have problems with the keyboard interfering with the screen after awhile? Such as marks, scratches, ect. Just the magnetic latch makes it seem like the screen fits so close to the keyboard.
tables the new MacBook to be 1.0 inches thick. And at the same time, lists it in centimeters for greater accuracy at 2.59 cm (which by the way is equal to 1.019685 inches). Therefore to round it off to the nearest tenth, the listing by Apple at 1.0 is correct. They obviously could have listed it to the nearest 100th, i.e., 1.02 inches, but for the life of me, I can't imagine that many would be able to relate to the difference.
What really irks me, is your demeaning attitude. It really isn't necessary to suggest that lying is involved. Except of course to your own comments.
Sadly enough, too many people get off by using the word "lie".
It makes them feel better if something isn't exactly what it's said to be.
Still the glossy screen, still the 950 accelerator? Forgetaboutit... When is the intel graphics accelerator 950 getting a serious upgrade? I'm sure the technology can deliver some decent performance, but today it's just below what I'd say is decent enough. Too bad they don't have a build to order non glossy screen model.
I'm probably going to buy my first mac in the very near future, but I'm still undecided between the MBP and just plain MB. Could some kind person explain the real effect of the graphics card on the MBP versus the shared video memory on the MB? Would a MB with 2GB RAM be able to play video games? I don't anticipate video or photo editing, and I'm not a big gamer, but I do like the occasional round of Civ 4.
Sorry for an overlong first post, but a last question: I see refurb 15'' 1.83GHz MBPs for $1399 on the apple website... how would that compare to the Core 2 Duo MB in overall performance? Is that a good deal, or is getting on board with the Core 2 Duo the better choice? Thanks
Still the glossy screen, still the 950 accelerator? Forgetaboutit... When is the intel graphics accelerator 950 getting a serious upgrade? I'm sure the technology can deliver some decent performance, but today it's just below what I'd say is decent enough. Too bad they don't have a build to order non glossy screen model.
The upgrade probably won't be until Intel starts shipping the chipset with the code name "Santa Rosa". That's not due out until Spring '07.
[QUOTE=palegolas When is the intel graphics accelerator 950 getting a serious upgrade? I'm sure the technology can deliver some decent performance, but today it's just below what I'd say is decent enough.[/QUOTE]
I'm probably going to buy my first mac in the very near future, but I'm still undecided between the MBP and just plain MB. Could some kind person explain the real effect of the graphics card on the MBP versus the shared video memory on the MB? Would a MB with 2GB RAM be able to play video games? I don't anticipate video or photo editing, and I'm not a big gamer, but I do like the occasional round of Civ 4.
Sorry for an overlong first post, but a last question: I see refurb 15'' 1.83GHz MBPs for $1399 on the apple website... how would that compare to the Core 2 Duo MB in overall performance? Is that a good deal, or is getting on board with the Core 2 Duo the better choice? Thanks
Generally speaking, if you can foot the bill for the MacBook Pro, do it. You certainly get what you pay for, if not more. The integrated graphics aren't really that bad unless you are playing the latest action games. Mac OS X uses a lot of GPU power to do the screen drawing, so if Apple is willing to ship a product with integrated graphics, it means that integrated graphics are adequate for drawing all the graphics in the mac GUI and for apps like iPhoto. Probably also fine for Civ 4, although I've never played Civ 4 so I can't say.
Until today, the MBP was a better deal since for $2k you'd get 15.4" screen, more RAM, 2-layer DVD-R, bigger HD, sweet graphics board. The MacBook Core Duo would cost ~$1500 for the same basic specs minus the screen and the graphics board and the Core 2 (although I don't think there was a 2-layer DVD-R even available) Now, you can get a MacBook with all the same stuff as the $2000 MBP, aside from screen and graphics, for $1300.
tables the new MacBook to be 1.0 inches thick. And at the same time, lists it in centimeters for greater accuracy at 2.59 cm (which by the way is equal to 1.019685 inches). Therefore to round it off to the nearest tenth, the listing by Apple at 1.0 is correct. They obviously could have listed it to the nearest 100th, i.e., 1.02 inches, but for the life of me, I can't imagine that many would be able to relate to the difference.
On the issue of rounding, 2.59 cm has three signicant digits therefore any conversion into inch should not be presented with more than three or four digits, i.e. 1.020 inches, everything beyond that is simply wrong.
Expanding on the topic of graphics for the new MB, if I get one these new MacBooks with 2GB of RAM, how would it play games like Sims 2 and its exapnsions, and WoW? I do all of my gaming on consoles, so games like Sims 2 and WoW are all I would really play.
I believe, however, that mgkwho's contention that Apple refer to the MacBook as 1" thin is erroneous.
That depends, if they said 1.0" thin, they would be incorrect. It is not forbidden to simply round to one significant digit.
See, if you bought plywood, and they were offered in two different specifications, one 1" thick, the other 2" thick, could you complain if the first turned out to be 1.08" thick.
Calling the MacBook 1" thin is a bit disingenuous, but it is not incorrect, and does not constitute lying.
Comments
A better MB and a better Congress on the same day! Happy holidays! 8)
We'll see... all politicians suck - it's a f****** beauty contest for power control...
The MacBook spec site
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html
tables the new MacBook to be 1.0 inches thick. And at the same time, lists it in centimeters for greater accuracy at 2.59 cm (which by the way is equal to 1.019685 inches). Therefore to round it off to the nearest tenth, the listing by Apple at 1.0 is correct. They obviously could have listed it to the nearest 100th, i.e., 1.02 inches, but for the life of me, I can't imagine that many would be able to relate to the difference.
What really irks me, is your demeaning attitude. It really isn't necessary to suggest that lying is involved. Except of course to your own comments.
Sadly enough, too many people get off by using the word "lie".
It makes them feel better if something isn't exactly what it's said to be.
But, that's their problem.
Well, I said kind of lying. I just couldn't think of a better word.
It's not a demeaning attitude, it is just the realization of marketing companies use.
Childish!
It doesn't get the point across.
You want to used loaded words, intentionally, because you think it will have an effect. It does, but not the one you want.
Did my first comment here give you the idea? I didn't have to say that either, but it has that same affect on you, as your comment did.
Guys, do some research. Apple does it better than any other computer when it comes to product disclosure.
http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
"Built-in 54-Mbps AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi (802.11g)(4); built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (Enhanced Data Rate) module"
But, that's not always true.
Often, Apple doesn't mention a spec that they don't directly support. If they don't directly support "n", they might not list it.
The computer itself might show it under System Profiler, but sometimes, even there, it won't be found.
I think the demeaning attitude was warranted here.
Look at the MacBook specs. Not MacBook PRO specs you cited...
http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
Steve
Did you not read my apology? And there was no reason for the demeaning attitude as first displayed,
But, that's not always true.
Often, Apple doesn't mention a spec that they don't directly support. If they don't directly support "n", they might not list it.
The computer itself might show it under System Profiler, but sometimes, even there, it won't be found.
If the don't mention a spec that they don't directly support, I would hope that they wouldn't list it.
The $1299 model is a very good deal.
If the don't mention a spec that they don't directly support, I would hope that they wouldn't list it.
That's right, but my point is that it's often in the hardware.
So much for that Tuesday crap!
Sorry for an overlong first post, but a last question: I see refurb 15'' 1.83GHz MBPs for $1399 on the apple website... how would that compare to the Core 2 Duo MB in overall performance? Is that a good deal, or is getting on board with the Core 2 Duo the better choice? Thanks
Still the glossy screen, still the 950 accelerator? Forgetaboutit... When is the intel graphics accelerator 950 getting a serious upgrade? I'm sure the technology can deliver some decent performance, but today it's just below what I'd say is decent enough. Too bad they don't have a build to order non glossy screen model.
The upgrade probably won't be until Intel starts shipping the chipset with the code name "Santa Rosa". That's not due out until Spring '07.
Spring.
I'm probably going to buy my first mac in the very near future, but I'm still undecided between the MBP and just plain MB. Could some kind person explain the real effect of the graphics card on the MBP versus the shared video memory on the MB? Would a MB with 2GB RAM be able to play video games? I don't anticipate video or photo editing, and I'm not a big gamer, but I do like the occasional round of Civ 4.
Sorry for an overlong first post, but a last question: I see refurb 15'' 1.83GHz MBPs for $1399 on the apple website... how would that compare to the Core 2 Duo MB in overall performance? Is that a good deal, or is getting on board with the Core 2 Duo the better choice? Thanks
Generally speaking, if you can foot the bill for the MacBook Pro, do it. You certainly get what you pay for, if not more. The integrated graphics aren't really that bad unless you are playing the latest action games. Mac OS X uses a lot of GPU power to do the screen drawing, so if Apple is willing to ship a product with integrated graphics, it means that integrated graphics are adequate for drawing all the graphics in the mac GUI and for apps like iPhoto. Probably also fine for Civ 4, although I've never played Civ 4 so I can't say.
Until today, the MBP was a better deal since for $2k you'd get 15.4" screen, more RAM, 2-layer DVD-R, bigger HD, sweet graphics board. The MacBook Core Duo would cost ~$1500 for the same basic specs minus the screen and the graphics board and the Core 2 (although I don't think there was a 2-layer DVD-R even available) Now, you can get a MacBook with all the same stuff as the $2000 MBP, aside from screen and graphics, for $1300.
how will the gma 950 handle leopard?
Yes, it will.
tables the new MacBook to be 1.0 inches thick. And at the same time, lists it in centimeters for greater accuracy at 2.59 cm (which by the way is equal to 1.019685 inches). Therefore to round it off to the nearest tenth, the listing by Apple at 1.0 is correct. They obviously could have listed it to the nearest 100th, i.e., 1.02 inches, but for the life of me, I can't imagine that many would be able to relate to the difference.
On the issue of rounding, 2.59 cm has three signicant digits therefore any conversion into inch should not be presented with more than three or four digits, i.e. 1.020 inches, everything beyond that is simply wrong.
Abster:
I believe, however, that mgkwho's contention that Apple refer to the MacBook as 1" thin is erroneous.
That depends, if they said 1.0" thin, they would be incorrect. It is not forbidden to simply round to one significant digit.
See, if you bought plywood, and they were offered in two different specifications, one 1" thick, the other 2" thick, could you complain if the first turned out to be 1.08" thick.
Calling the MacBook 1" thin is a bit disingenuous, but it is not incorrect, and does not constitute lying.