Let's see some stats on this, because Windows laptop makers are schooling Apple on weight.
No they aren't.
Let's see the lighter PC laptops that have the full-power Core 2 Duo processor, support for 4 GB RAM, 15.4" widescreens with at least 1440 x 900 resolution, optical audio I/O, dual-link DVI video out, 8600M or equivalent GPU, ExpressCard slot, built-in 8x dual-layer DVD burner and up to 6 hours battery life without the use of a secondary battery.
Ummm... 1 inchin thin is nothing. Where is the lightweight part? Let's see some stats on this, because Windows laptop makers are schooling Apple on weight.
Because the MacBook Pro models are the lightest in their display class!
Quote:
Originally Posted by umijin
BTW - this looks just like an Apple press release - not a real analytical look at the new offerings. Cut and paste is not cool, dudes.
Because a lot of people don't or didn't bother to go to the Apple site and look for themselves and to do an analysis one would have to have the item in hand.
Based on some of the erroneous postings here, there are enough horses asses giving their professional opinions already.
That I'm not sure why you are convinced that making the hard drive easier to to remove would make the device any thicker or heavier.
If you ever opened a Titanium to a MacBook Pro and compared it to a Dell (or any other laptop, etc.,) you'll see that the former(s) fits like a golfer's glove. The latter(s) like a catcher's mitt.
I think that's still a little better than the previous model, isn't it? I thought the previous model had something like 39% NTSC gamut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
No they aren't.
Let's see the lighter PC laptops that have the full-power Core 2 Duo processor, support for 4 GB RAM, 15.4" widescreens with at least 1440 x 900 resolution, optical audio I/O, dual-link DVI video out, 8600M or equivalent GPU, ExpressCard slot, built-in 8x dual-layer DVD burner and up to 6 hours battery life without the use of a secondary battery.
That still doesn't mean that Apple is participating in the ultralight class. If power is the priority, then Apple's notebook is fine, but not everyone needs that power, and prefer to prioritize on weight first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
From a post I made earlier in a different thread:
You are correct to note that FSB and memory bus speed don't need to be tightly coupled.
The width of the memory bus in the G5 is twice as wide as the FSB, so the actual transfer rate wasn't as disparate as the numbers would suggest.
And what % of the NTSC color gamut did the old displays (or the 17" MBP display) achieve? This is presumably a function of the number of bits per pixel as well as backlight technology. The old screens were 6 bits and the new ones are probably 6 bits too.
If you ever opened a Titanium to a MacBook Pro and compared it to a Dell, etc., or any other laptop you'll see that the former(s) fits like a golfer's glove. The latter like a catcher's mitt.
But the problem with that argument is that Apple is doing the same feature just fine in a more compact device.
Honestly, unless you have old equipment or want the high res 17", I fail to see the excitement. The speeds are barely improved.
Ah, but there's more to speed than the CPU. Nobody seems to have noticed that the MacBook Pros now have large (160GB) 7200 RPM hard drives available as an option. This is exciting news to me: CPU speeds are so fast, and RAM large enough, that the real bottleneck in my system is the hard drive! Whenever my system slows down, I always know it's because of the 5400 RPM hard drive because I can hear the read/write head clicking back and forth. Having a MacBook Pro with this faster hard drive should provide more of a performance improvement than any CPU speedup could offer.
That still doesn't mean that Apple is participating in the ultralight class. If power is the priority, then Apple's notebook is fine, but not everyone needs that power, and prefer to prioritize on weight first.
Sure, I appreciate that. I hope that Apple are working on an ultra-portable. Maybe we'll even see one at WWDC.
However, I do get tired of people saying the MBP is "too heavy" or some such. That's a rediculous thing to say given that it is, as far as I'm aware, easily the lightest machine with its capabilities. You have to compare like with like.
I agree. A nice little upgrade but not quite exciting - yet. I think Apple could have gone further in a few areas. The move to the Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT GPU is good, but they could have at least offered the 512 MB version as an option like what is available in some higher end Santa Rosa equipped PC Notebooks. There seemed to be enough murmuring about getting a GPU with the 512 MB option leading up to this upgrade, but I guess not enough to get Apple to move on it just yet. Also, the new fsb speed is quoted at 800 Mhz and yet Apple plugs in what is claimed to be 667 MHZ DDR RAM. Just trying to clear their 667 MHZ stock? So this begs the question posed by Palter earlier in this thread:
Crucial sells 800MHZ DDR2-SODIMMs (e.g., $529 for 2 2GB SODIMMs). Anyone know if they'll work?
Very good upgrade overall. Not good if you already have a recent C2D 'Book but fantastic if you're upgrading from a PB G4!
Nice to finally see a 7200 rpm HD option! Of course, that delays it 4 to 6 weeks.
Even better if you're upgrading from a DigitalAudio 733mHz tower...
Hey, this is somewhat relevant since you brought up the drive speeds -- does anyone know if the 4200 rpm 200GB drive would be fast enough to use for DV video editing or HD playback? I'll be getting one of these new MBPs and I'm trying to decide whether to go for hdd speed or capacity.
Also, the new fsb speed is quoted at 800 Mhz and yet Apple plugs in what is claimed to be 667 MHZ DDR RAM. Just trying to clear their 667 MHZ stock? So this begs the question posed by Palter earlier in this thread:
Crucial sells 800MHZ DDR2-SODIMMs (e.g., $529 for 2 2GB SODIMMs). Anyone know if they'll work?
FSB doesn't equal RAM bus speed. The two are totally different busses. The FSB connects the CPU to the chipset, and the chipset interfaces to the RAM via the RAM bus. I imagine that you could put 800 MHz SO-DIMMS into the machine, but it'd still clock the bus at 333 MHz so you wouldn't see any change in performance.
does anyone know if the 4200 rpm 200GB drive would be fast enough to use for DV video editing or HD playback? I'll be getting one of these new MBPs and I'm trying to decide whether to go for hdd speed or capacity.
You aren't going to be doing any serious HD editing without an external FW800 drive.
Perhaps a few of you should visit Macword and get some more insight. Seems like a lot are speculating without facts. Making ridiculous statements and thus an absoluate waste of time.
Engadget is saying that these aren't santa rosa based laptops
Quote:
Apple left a little mystery in their MacBook Pro announcement today, and being that this marks the one of industry's first official releases of an LED-backlit laptop (behind Sony, but still ahead of Dell), we had to take out the guesswork and get confirmation on a few of our more burning questions.
All 15-inch MBPs now use LED-backlit displays standard; 17-inchers still use CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent)
Apple claims users can see a battery-life benefit of between 30 mins - 1 hour (depending on use). They did not have stats on exact efficiencies between LED and CCFL backlit displays.
The new LED backlight is the same brightness: 300 vs 300 nits of the previous gen's CCFL
The viewing angle is also the same as before
In other words, besides faster time from fully-off to full-brightness and an increase in battery life, Apple claims users should notice absolutely no perceivable difference between last-gen displays and the new LED-backlit ones.
Other bits
The MacBook line is not yet using Santa Rosa
Even though the MBP is 0.2 pounds lighter, we're still without an internal / integrated 3G option
Comments
Let's see some stats on this, because Windows laptop makers are schooling Apple on weight.
No they aren't.
Let's see the lighter PC laptops that have the full-power Core 2 Duo processor, support for 4 GB RAM, 15.4" widescreens with at least 1440 x 900 resolution, optical audio I/O, dual-link DVI video out, 8600M or equivalent GPU, ExpressCard slot, built-in 8x dual-layer DVD burner and up to 6 hours battery life without the use of a secondary battery.
Ummm... 1 inchin thin is nothing. Where is the lightweight part? Let's see some stats on this, because Windows laptop makers are schooling Apple on weight.
Because the MacBook Pro models are the lightest in their display class!
BTW - this looks just like an Apple press release - not a real analytical look at the new offerings. Cut and paste is not cool, dudes.
Because a lot of people don't or didn't bother to go to the Apple site and look for themselves and to do an analysis one would have to have the item in hand.
Based on some of the erroneous postings here, there are enough horses asses giving their professional opinions already.
15.4-inch widescreen LED-backlit 1440-by-900 LCD display
Is this the same Samsung 1440x900 LED backlit panel that only shows 45% of the NTSC color gamut?
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.as...de=02&SP_Num=0
That I'm not sure why you are convinced that making the hard drive easier to to remove would make the device any thicker or heavier.
If you ever opened a Titanium to a MacBook Pro and compared it to a Dell (or any other laptop, etc.,) you'll see that the former(s) fits like a golfer's glove. The latter(s) like a catcher's mitt.
Is this the same Samsung 1440x900 LED backlit panel that only shows 45% of the NTSC color gamut?
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.as...de=02&SP_Num=0
I think that's still a little better than the previous model, isn't it? I thought the previous model had something like 39% NTSC gamut.
No they aren't.
Let's see the lighter PC laptops that have the full-power Core 2 Duo processor, support for 4 GB RAM, 15.4" widescreens with at least 1440 x 900 resolution, optical audio I/O, dual-link DVI video out, 8600M or equivalent GPU, ExpressCard slot, built-in 8x dual-layer DVD burner and up to 6 hours battery life without the use of a secondary battery.
That still doesn't mean that Apple is participating in the ultralight class. If power is the priority, then Apple's notebook is fine, but not everyone needs that power, and prefer to prioritize on weight first.
From a post I made earlier in a different thread:
You are correct to note that FSB and memory bus speed don't need to be tightly coupled.
The width of the memory bus in the G5 is twice as wide as the FSB, so the actual transfer rate wasn't as disparate as the numbers would suggest.
Is this the same Samsung 1440x900 LED backlit panel that only shows 45% of the NTSC color gamut?
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.as...de=02&SP_Num=0
And what % of the NTSC color gamut did the old displays (or the 17" MBP display) achieve? This is presumably a function of the number of bits per pixel as well as backlight technology. The old screens were 6 bits and the new ones are probably 6 bits too.
Is this the same Samsung 1440x900 LED backlit panel that only shows 45% of the NTSC color gamut?
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.as...de=02&SP_Num=0
I take it 45% of something is not good - or in this case is it?
If you ever opened a Titanium to a MacBook Pro and compared it to a Dell, etc., or any other laptop you'll see that the former(s) fits like a golfer's glove. The latter like a catcher's mitt.
But the problem with that argument is that Apple is doing the same feature just fine in a more compact device.
Honestly, unless you have old equipment or want the high res 17", I fail to see the excitement. The speeds are barely improved.
Ah, but there's more to speed than the CPU. Nobody seems to have noticed that the MacBook Pros now have large (160GB) 7200 RPM hard drives available as an option. This is exciting news to me: CPU speeds are so fast, and RAM large enough, that the real bottleneck in my system is the hard drive! Whenever my system slows down, I always know it's because of the 5400 RPM hard drive because I can hear the read/write head clicking back and forth. Having a MacBook Pro with this faster hard drive should provide more of a performance improvement than any CPU speedup could offer.
That still doesn't mean that Apple is participating in the ultralight class. If power is the priority, then Apple's notebook is fine, but not everyone needs that power, and prefer to prioritize on weight first.
Sure, I appreciate that. I hope that Apple are working on an ultra-portable. Maybe we'll even see one at WWDC.
However, I do get tired of people saying the MBP is "too heavy" or some such. That's a rediculous thing to say given that it is, as far as I'm aware, easily the lightest machine with its capabilities. You have to compare like with like.
Crucial sells 800MHZ DDR2-SODIMMs (e.g., $529 for 2 2GB SODIMMs). Anyone know if they'll work?
Very good upgrade overall. Not good if you already have a recent C2D 'Book but fantastic if you're upgrading from a PB G4!
Nice to finally see a 7200 rpm HD option! Of course, that delays it 4 to 6 weeks.
Even better if you're upgrading from a DigitalAudio 733mHz tower...
Hey, this is somewhat relevant since you brought up the drive speeds -- does anyone know if the 4200 rpm 200GB drive would be fast enough to use for DV video editing or HD playback? I'll be getting one of these new MBPs and I'm trying to decide whether to go for hdd speed or capacity.
Also, the new fsb speed is quoted at 800 Mhz and yet Apple plugs in what is claimed to be 667 MHZ DDR RAM. Just trying to clear their 667 MHZ stock? So this begs the question posed by Palter earlier in this thread:
Crucial sells 800MHZ DDR2-SODIMMs (e.g., $529 for 2 2GB SODIMMs). Anyone know if they'll work?
FSB doesn't equal RAM bus speed. The two are totally different busses. The FSB connects the CPU to the chipset, and the chipset interfaces to the RAM via the RAM bus. I imagine that you could put 800 MHz SO-DIMMS into the machine, but it'd still clock the bus at 333 MHz so you wouldn't see any change in performance.
does anyone know if the 4200 rpm 200GB drive would be fast enough to use for DV video editing or HD playback? I'll be getting one of these new MBPs and I'm trying to decide whether to go for hdd speed or capacity.
You aren't going to be doing any serious HD editing without an external FW800 drive.
But the problem with that argument is that Apple is doing the same feature just fine in a more compact device.
I believe that the original issue was that the MacBooks were more difficult to change the harddrive.
And rightlfully so. I find it a lot harder to change my (compact) golf glove than it does to my (big) catcher's mitt.
I take it 45% of something is not good - or in this case is it?
The MacBook Pro is supposed to be a pro laptop after all. There are other LED screens which can cover over 100% of NTSC.
Apple left a little mystery in their MacBook Pro announcement today, and being that this marks the one of industry's first official releases of an LED-backlit laptop (behind Sony, but still ahead of Dell), we had to take out the guesswork and get confirmation on a few of our more burning questions.
All 15-inch MBPs now use LED-backlit displays standard; 17-inchers still use CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent)
Apple claims users can see a battery-life benefit of between 30 mins - 1 hour (depending on use). They did not have stats on exact efficiencies between LED and CCFL backlit displays.
The new LED backlight is the same brightness: 300 vs 300 nits of the previous gen's CCFL
The viewing angle is also the same as before
In other words, besides faster time from fully-off to full-brightness and an increase in battery life, Apple claims users should notice absolutely no perceivable difference between last-gen displays and the new LED-backlit ones.
Other bits
The MacBook line is not yet using Santa Rosa
Even though the MBP is 0.2 pounds lighter, we're still without an internal / integrated 3G option
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/05/m...t-macbook-pro/