The old Macbooks did have Firewire, I think? So they were removed on the new ones. Not good - what are people with DV camcorders who want to use iMovie to do? This must be a big part of you average family MacBook usage.
And keeping the old MacBook at the low end looks like a rush move to placate expectations that the update would bring entry prices down significantly. In this environment Apple needed something solidly desirable but in the lower price range. The improvements here are too esoteric and the price remains too high.
Overall, it looks a bit rushed and ill-thought-out to me, despite some interesting specifics.
Apple made a nice incremental improvements and some substantial ones, and lagged elsewhere.
I won't be upgrading because of
1- Glossy Screen
2- Blu-Ray
3- not sold on new trackpad lack of buttons, will need to try it out.
honestly, apple is only coming up with lame excuses for not supporting Blu-Ray, even as an option, at this time.
on MBP, the price is there and so are the interested consumers. Apple ought to stop stifling new technology that competes with their itunes movie store.
As a Graphic Designer you should be aware that glossy displays saturate colors. Not to mention that with the overpowered LED that they mentioned will totally screw any chance of having color accuracy when it comes to print design. STEVE JOBS IS RETARDED! PERIOD, EXCLAMATION!
I understand your concerns here, I really do, BUT....
1) What segment of Macbook purchasers are we talking about here? 5%? 10%
2) If you are doing print design and you need color accuracy, shouldn't you be using a calibrated monitor? And when one calibrates a monitor, isn't part of the consideration the ambient light in the room, and how the monitor is situated in relation to that light? So how can you properly calibrate the screen of a laptop that moves around on a regular basis?? Hmmm?
I am finding it hard to find words that express how hugely underwhelmed I am.
I am writing this from my 8 year old 400mhz Ti Powerbook, which quite frankly, is far better looking than this stunningly boring newbie. A tin of Heinz baked beans is probably more innovative, stylish and exciting.
Well I've just seen the pricing in the UK, and I'm afraid that a MacBook to replace my iBook is now totally off the todo list.
The new MacBooks are £949 and £1149. That's $1,654 and £2,003. Sure, take off tax ... $1408 and $1705.
Much as I love the machined appearance ... it's expensive, it's hard to justify that.
Even the white MacBook has gone UP in price, from £699 to £719. Some price drop that!
Actually, what I think Apple has done is leave the consumer laptop market with this move. They've gone into the quality boutique market. These machines are extremely high quality, no doubt about it. But you don't get a lot for your money. It's like how a fillet steak costs twice as much as a sirloin steak - both feed you, the fillet steak tastes a little nicer and is a better experience, but is it worth twice the money? On a special occasion ... or if it will get you laid, yeah, it is. This is just a computer.
I don't want a notebook I have to "reposition" to avoid something that shouldn't have been there from the start. "Ah if your notebook stops accepting key strokes, just move it a little ...".
If the screen goes blue with weird characters, just hit CRTL-ALT-DEL...
Well, at least it shows that the Mac and PC worlds keep converging... Same Intel based architecture, same softwares, same "if it doesn't work, fix it yourself" attitude...
I will be using this computer for photography, video editing (just personal not pro) and general features. Maybe some sparse gaming.
Am I missing something here? Am I naive and not realizing how good these are? Let me know.
The updated graphics is pretty significant, especially considering what you'd like to do with the system.
In the presentation regarding the MBPs new graphics capabilities, Apple mentioned you could switch between the two GPU cores. But the potential is in the next version of the Mac OS (aka "Snow Leopard") and a new API called OpenCL, applications can take advantage of both GPUs to process graphics and video rather than the CPU. The benefit is complex content could be manipulated and rendered more quickly via the GPUs.
Having said that, the transcription of the Apple presentation did not explicitly say the above is possible. We'll have to wait until we get a complete debrief from Apple Insider and other news resources.
If you are considering a new MB, then you are essentially purchasing a so called "13 inch MBP". In essence all the power and capabilities of the current 2.5 GHz 15"/17" MBP but with slightly higher performing graphics and CPU performance... at nearly half the price. Not bad in my "mac"book.
[QUOTE=melgross;1322784]There will always be some person who has a problem with something.
Good:
Real graphics in MacBooks
MBPs with much faster graphics capabilities
Bad:
Glossy display - I dunno, I've been in an apple store - yes, many lights, not unlike work - where reflection on the glossy screens was very prominent. I have to hope the 17" MBPs have a matte option, or something otherwise reducing glare, perhaps in a hires display. Thoughts of using MBs or MBPs for real-time monitoring while recording video in anything but dark environments = Toast.
No FW400 - I thought multiple timing tests (on Macs) have shown FW400 to easily outpace USB2, despite the theoretical higher speed of USB. And, I have a $4000 video camera with FW400. Great.
I had considered a MacBook - once it had better graphics - but now the FW400 is gone and glossy is the only option up the (new) line.
And - glad to hear of great design, elegant construction etc, but: still $2k for a MBP? Why is it when I look at competing products - also Core 2 duo, also fast memory, big disk, 15" or larger display - theirs is under $1500, sometimes well under? I've owned Macs for over 20 years. I'm not thrilled by today's announcements.
I understand your concerns here, I really do, BUT....
1) What segment of Macbook purchasers are we talking about here? 5%? 10%
2) If you are doing print design and you need color accuracy, shouldn't you be using a calibrated monitor? And when one calibrates a monitor, isn't part of the consideration the ambient light in the room, and how the monitor is situated in relation to that light? So how can you properly calibrate the screen of a laptop that moves around on a regular basis?? Hmmm?
Not only graphic designers-Have you ever tried crunching numbers on a glossy? Talk about headache inducing.
As said before, it is apparent that you haven't really tried it out. I avoided gloss like the plague until Apple released the re-designed Macbook. I wanted one and didn't feel like paying for the MBP upgrade so I picked one up. I expected it to be a pain but within days it didn't even register in my mind.
Well good for you. It's apparent that you must be half blind.
No FW400 - I thought multiple timing tests (on Macs) have shown FW400 to easily outpace USB2, despite the theoretical higher speed of USB. And, I have a $4000 video camera with FW400. Great.
Not sure what the heck is going on...Glossy screen on the MAcbook Pro? A Disaster if you cannot get a MAtte Screen.. Firewire 800 only? Lets get more adapters... Only 1 Firewire Port? LEts get a Firewire hub with a adapter...Display Port? Now everyone has to get a adapter to plug anything in.. Even a DVI connector... No Firewire 400 on a Macbook? Lets see all the Musicians Pay almost 2 times the amount for a mobile setup.. A Screen that is $900 and only works on the new laptops? I think is the worst idea ever....
Most annoying: No Firewire in the non-pro models, no matte option anywhere, no DVI. These are all indisputably steps in the wrong direction. They may be outweighed by better graphics, brighter screen, more environmentally friendly, etc. but I think it's easier to argue that they have taken a step back in terms of a better everyday experience.
The Firewire issue will probably be the worst for a lot of people--no more video editing for under $2k? If you have a lot of FW drives, you have to either buy new drives or spend a minimum of $2k for the laptop. No target disk mode for under $2k.
The LED displays and new manufactuing process are nice, but I can't see many people making a buying decision based on these factors.
Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.
If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.
But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.
When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.
Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.
That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.
Glossy displays are CAPABLE of producing a more accurate representation of the information than matte displays - in lab conditions.
But matte displays are more likely to produce a more accurate representation in the real world, because of the reflections on a glossy display.
Then there is the issue of placing a sheet of glass between the panel and the user. A piece of glass whose sole purpose (in the iMac at least) is designed to 'enhance' the picture quality. It's this 'enhancement' that makes the iMac's glassy-glossy display doubly unsuitable for colour repro.
I have yet to meet an artworker (whom I respect) that prefers glossy over matte in a work environment. I do however know dozens who will avoid glossy displays at all costs. I know of one artworker in particular who threatened to walk out if the IT department forced him to use a new glassy-glossy iMac.
And a lot of us don't have the choice of where we work or how it's lit. I'm a freelancer, so I turn up and get told where to sit and that's it. And now, thanks to Apple we don't have the choice of a matte display laptop either.
My ideal kit was a 17" high res. matte MacBook Pro, with a matte Cinema Display at each location. Looks like I'll be spending my money on something else!
I am finding it hard to find words that express how hugely underwhelmed I am.
I am writing this from my 8 year old 400mhz Ti Powerbook, which quite frankly, is far better looking than this stunningly boring newbie. A tin of Heinz baked beans is probably more innovative, stylish and exciting.
I totally agree. This is what happens when you devote all your energy for the last 2 years into iPhone development.
As a Graphic Designer you should be aware that glossy displays saturate colors. Not to mention that with the overpowered LED that they mentioned will totally screw any chance of having color accuracy when it comes to print design. STEVE JOBS IS RETARDED! PERIOD, EXCLAMATION!
You must not work at a very high level then. Your response isn't very professional.
You don't seem to know that you can turn down brightness. You can, and MUST, calibrate your display if you are to do any serious graphics, or color work.
You also seem to be the only one who thinks LED backlights are bad.
I don't know about you, but the environment I work in has lights with "ON" AND "OFF" switches!
Well, in my office, like in most modern offices, it does not. There is a *central* switch. If I somehow manage to get access to it, I switch off the light for the *entire* floor. I know it's stupid, and telling my boss might change my work environment, but probably not in the way I want to...
That's it, for the first time in 13 years as a Mac user I hate or cant afford all of their computers. I hate, HATE glass screens and I Hate HATE Glossy Screens. Now I have no choice except a Mac Pro which I can't afford. I hope my 2 year old MacBook Pro last long enough for me to figure out how to build my own laptop.
Fuck You Apple, You just lost me. I now feel the pain of your bull shit locked system.
Comments
And keeping the old MacBook at the low end looks like a rush move to placate expectations that the update would bring entry prices down significantly. In this environment Apple needed something solidly desirable but in the lower price range. The improvements here are too esoteric and the price remains too high.
Overall, it looks a bit rushed and ill-thought-out to me, despite some interesting specifics.
I won't be upgrading because of
1- Glossy Screen
2- Blu-Ray
3- not sold on new trackpad lack of buttons, will need to try it out.
honestly, apple is only coming up with lame excuses for not supporting Blu-Ray, even as an option, at this time.
on MBP, the price is there and so are the interested consumers. Apple ought to stop stifling new technology that competes with their itunes movie store.
pretty damn lame.
As a Graphic Designer you should be aware that glossy displays saturate colors. Not to mention that with the overpowered LED that they mentioned will totally screw any chance of having color accuracy when it comes to print design. STEVE JOBS IS RETARDED! PERIOD, EXCLAMATION!
I understand your concerns here, I really do, BUT....
1) What segment of Macbook purchasers are we talking about here? 5%? 10%
2) If you are doing print design and you need color accuracy, shouldn't you be using a calibrated monitor? And when one calibrates a monitor, isn't part of the consideration the ambient light in the room, and how the monitor is situated in relation to that light? So how can you properly calibrate the screen of a laptop that moves around on a regular basis?? Hmmm?
I am writing this from my 8 year old 400mhz Ti Powerbook, which quite frankly, is far better looking than this stunningly boring newbie. A tin of Heinz baked beans is probably more innovative, stylish and exciting.
The new MacBooks are £949 and £1149. That's $1,654 and £2,003. Sure, take off tax ... $1408 and $1705.
Much as I love the machined appearance ... it's expensive, it's hard to justify that.
Even the white MacBook has gone UP in price, from £699 to £719. Some price drop that!
Actually, what I think Apple has done is leave the consumer laptop market with this move. They've gone into the quality boutique market. These machines are extremely high quality, no doubt about it. But you don't get a lot for your money. It's like how a fillet steak costs twice as much as a sirloin steak - both feed you, the fillet steak tastes a little nicer and is a better experience, but is it worth twice the money? On a special occasion ... or if it will get you laid, yeah, it is. This is just a computer.
I don't want a notebook I have to "reposition" to avoid something that shouldn't have been there from the start. "Ah if your notebook stops accepting key strokes, just move it a little ...".
If the screen goes blue with weird characters, just hit CRTL-ALT-DEL...
Well, at least it shows that the Mac and PC worlds keep converging... Same Intel based architecture, same softwares, same "if it doesn't work, fix it yourself" attitude...
I will be using this computer for photography, video editing (just personal not pro) and general features. Maybe some sparse gaming.
Am I missing something here?
The updated graphics is pretty significant, especially considering what you'd like to do with the system.
In the presentation regarding the MBPs new graphics capabilities, Apple mentioned you could switch between the two GPU cores. But the potential is in the next version of the Mac OS (aka "Snow Leopard") and a new API called OpenCL, applications can take advantage of both GPUs to process graphics and video rather than the CPU. The benefit is complex content could be manipulated and rendered more quickly via the GPUs.
Having said that, the transcription of the Apple presentation did not explicitly say the above is possible. We'll have to wait until we get a complete debrief from Apple Insider and other news resources.
If you are considering a new MB, then you are essentially purchasing a so called "13 inch MBP". In essence all the power and capabilities of the current 2.5 GHz 15"/17" MBP but with slightly higher performing graphics and CPU performance... at nearly half the price. Not bad in my "mac"book.
Pardon the pun. Couldn't help it.
-YipYipYipee
Good:
Real graphics in MacBooks
MBPs with much faster graphics capabilities
Bad:
Glossy display - I dunno, I've been in an apple store - yes, many lights, not unlike work - where reflection on the glossy screens was very prominent. I have to hope the 17" MBPs have a matte option, or something otherwise reducing glare, perhaps in a hires display. Thoughts of using MBs or MBPs for real-time monitoring while recording video in anything but dark environments = Toast.
No FW400 - I thought multiple timing tests (on Macs) have shown FW400 to easily outpace USB2, despite the theoretical higher speed of USB. And, I have a $4000 video camera with FW400. Great.
I had considered a MacBook - once it had better graphics - but now the FW400 is gone and glossy is the only option up the (new) line.
And - glad to hear of great design, elegant construction etc, but: still $2k for a MBP? Why is it when I look at competing products - also Core 2 duo, also fast memory, big disk, 15" or larger display - theirs is under $1500, sometimes well under? I've owned Macs for over 20 years. I'm not thrilled by today's announcements.
I understand your concerns here, I really do, BUT....
1) What segment of Macbook purchasers are we talking about here? 5%? 10%
2) If you are doing print design and you need color accuracy, shouldn't you be using a calibrated monitor? And when one calibrates a monitor, isn't part of the consideration the ambient light in the room, and how the monitor is situated in relation to that light? So how can you properly calibrate the screen of a laptop that moves around on a regular basis?? Hmmm?
Not only graphic designers-Have you ever tried crunching numbers on a glossy? Talk about headache inducing.
As said before, it is apparent that you haven't really tried it out. I avoided gloss like the plague until Apple released the re-designed Macbook. I wanted one and didn't feel like paying for the MBP upgrade so I picked one up. I expected it to be a pain but within days it didn't even register in my mind.
Well good for you. It's apparent that you must be half blind.
No FW400 - I thought multiple timing tests (on Macs) have shown FW400 to easily outpace USB2, despite the theoretical higher speed of USB. And, I have a $4000 video camera with FW400. Great.
You can use FW400 with the FW800 port.
The Firewire issue will probably be the worst for a lot of people--no more video editing for under $2k? If you have a lot of FW drives, you have to either buy new drives or spend a minimum of $2k for the laptop. No target disk mode for under $2k.
The LED displays and new manufactuing process are nice, but I can't see many people making a buying decision based on these factors.
Sorry, but you're wrong here.
Matte displays cut down on the possible saturation and contrast the monitor is natively capable of. They also out a hard limit on the blacks which is below what the display is again itself capable of delivering.
If you really want to, you can always lower these numbers yourself numerous ways. PS offers mucho options to do this on your monitor all by itself.
But, you can never bring it back properly on your monitor when it's cut down by the matte screen.
When you raise saturation, you're always in danger of losing a few levels in that color. That simply lowers the quality even further.
Try raising saturation in a single color in PS. If it's already well saturated, you'll notice that detail in that color begins to disappear as the saturation is raised. That's because you're artificially moving the entire gamma structure out of range on the high side.
That's no solution. It gives us even more reasons for doing graphics work in a darkened room. That's less of a problem with glossy.
Glossy displays are CAPABLE of producing a more accurate representation of the information than matte displays - in lab conditions.
But matte displays are more likely to produce a more accurate representation in the real world, because of the reflections on a glossy display.
Then there is the issue of placing a sheet of glass between the panel and the user. A piece of glass whose sole purpose (in the iMac at least) is designed to 'enhance' the picture quality. It's this 'enhancement' that makes the iMac's glassy-glossy display doubly unsuitable for colour repro.
I have yet to meet an artworker (whom I respect) that prefers glossy over matte in a work environment. I do however know dozens who will avoid glossy displays at all costs. I know of one artworker in particular who threatened to walk out if the IT department forced him to use a new glassy-glossy iMac.
And a lot of us don't have the choice of where we work or how it's lit. I'm a freelancer, so I turn up and get told where to sit and that's it. And now, thanks to Apple we don't have the choice of a matte display laptop either.
My ideal kit was a 17" high res. matte MacBook Pro, with a matte Cinema Display at each location. Looks like I'll be spending my money on something else!
Or is it On-Line order only?
I called Apple Mall of America and they didn't know anything yet.
... and... I'm pretty happy and excited about the new MBP.
The biggest thing missing at the moment is TOUCH interface.
Having used the iPhone for a year, TOUCH is awesome!
I am finding it hard to find words that express how hugely underwhelmed I am.
I am writing this from my 8 year old 400mhz Ti Powerbook, which quite frankly, is far better looking than this stunningly boring newbie. A tin of Heinz baked beans is probably more innovative, stylish and exciting.
I totally agree. This is what happens when you devote all your energy for the last 2 years into iPhone development.
As a Graphic Designer you should be aware that glossy displays saturate colors. Not to mention that with the overpowered LED that they mentioned will totally screw any chance of having color accuracy when it comes to print design. STEVE JOBS IS RETARDED! PERIOD, EXCLAMATION!
You must not work at a very high level then. Your response isn't very professional.
You don't seem to know that you can turn down brightness. You can, and MUST, calibrate your display if you are to do any serious graphics, or color work.
You also seem to be the only one who thinks LED backlights are bad.
I don't know about you, but the environment I work in has lights with "ON" AND "OFF" switches!
Well, in my office, like in most modern offices, it does not. There is a *central* switch. If I somehow manage to get access to it, I switch off the light for the *entire* floor. I know it's stupid, and telling my boss might change my work environment, but probably not in the way I want to...
Fuck You Apple, You just lost me. I now feel the pain of your bull shit locked system.