New 17" MBP
1920 x 1200
Core 2 Duo not quad
$50 anti-glare option
Sealed battery that lasts 8 hours and can be charged 1000 times.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 8*1000 / 24 = 333 days?
Sure people will use it on the power sometimes but that's not very good.
Nice to see a 256GB SSD option though.
It's also only 8 hours on integrated graphics not the 9600M GT.
Spec is $2799 2.66GHz, 4GB RAM, 320GB hard drive due end of January.
Core 2 Duo not quad
$50 anti-glare option
Sealed battery that lasts 8 hours and can be charged 1000 times.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 8*1000 / 24 = 333 days?
Sure people will use it on the power sometimes but that's not very good.
Nice to see a 256GB SSD option though.
It's also only 8 hours on integrated graphics not the 9600M GT.
Spec is $2799 2.66GHz, 4GB RAM, 320GB hard drive due end of January.
Comments
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 8*1000 / 24 = 333 days?
Sure people will use it on the power sometimes but that's not very good.
Aren't Apple's current batteries rated for 300 to 400 charge cycles, and claim only 5 hours per charge?
400*5/24 = 83 days
This is a quarter the battery life of the new ones.
And I would guess that most people use notebooks plugged in to the wall 90% of the time -- though this is likely only true because the battery life of notebooks is not long enough for a full day's work.
Usually right after an update, Macs look like a decent value but this looks pretty lame to start with.
At the risk of sounding like sour grapes, I think this was a lame update. $2800 for a dual core cpu at 2.6 ghz? That's going to look pathetic in two months when pc manufacturers will have 2.5 ghz quad core laptops for that price or less.
Usually right after an update, Macs look like a decent value but this looks pretty lame to start with.
Sure, you could get quad-core hardware, but imagine the power needs on such beasts. As of right now, they would be throttled down to dual-core performance, or perform with such awful battery life as to be worthless as a portable.
On top of all that, there's the Snow Leopard equation -- if 10.6 is going to open up all those idle gigaflops from the GPU and increase multi-threading performance, isn't that akin to getting more processors for free? I, for one, am glad to see Apple going back to the software end of things to squeeze more juice out of the hardware. It is, quite frankly, ridiculous how bloated software has become. Apps that used to take up a few dozen kilobytes are now tens of megabytes in size, packed with redundant library code that will never be executed in the entire life cycle of the app. Yet it all has to be loaded into memory, squeezing out space for stuff that actually performs a function.
We have to get software bloat under control. I've said it for a long time; thank goodness Apple is deciding to do something about it, even if just a few things.
On top of all that, there's the Snow Leopard equation -- if 10.6 is going to open up all those idle gigaflops from the GPU and increase multi-threading performance, isn't that akin to getting more processors for free? .
Yeah and Grand central is supposed to take advantage of multi core processors, beyond two cores.
Won't happen with that machine.
This spring or summer by the latest when HP and Dell have quad core laptops for 2k, the 17" MBP is going to look like a horrible value by comparison.
Time will tell. But it doesn't look like a great value to me. Why no 2.5 ghz quad core option? Sure its pricey but max out the current machine and its over 5k. But only dual core. And an update probably won't happen till late fall or maybe next year.