Apple unveils 17-inch MacBook Pro with 8-hour battery

1678911

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 236
    drjedidrjedi Posts: 61member
    Who buys these things? I'm one of them. And I'm not rich, nor do I have tons of money to throw around, but I'm more of a nomad with a tiny flat with very little room for TVs, desktop computers, etc. I travel about 5 months a year and I can't stand being constrained by tiny screens. I'm not even a pro, but I demand pro features and performance in a portable that I can take anywhere. I use my MacBook Pro to arrange music that I write, plug my guitar into it via a MAudio Blackbox, DJ using DJ1800 ,all the sundry internet cr@p we all do like posting on forums, watching YouTube videos, etc, and yes I game on it, too. As I only want to own one computer that must double as a video player / tv , hi fi stereo, and gaming platform, the 17" suits me perfectly.

    Now with the matte screen option (as I hate reflections on my screen) and at 17" the unibody MacBook Pro is nearly ideal. What's missing is a BluRay read/write drive and a better GPU (and an extra FW port). So I can wait to upgrade for a a model or two, until Apple gets on the Blu-Ray train. But with the matte screen I'm back to considering a new 17" MacBook Pro in the near future
  • Reply 202 of 236
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zanshin View Post


    Remember that the Inaugeration madness happens on the 20th, and Steve is a BIG supporter of the Dems. VERY unlikely he would even consider putting out any message amidst that media maelstrom only to have it completely ignored.



    Good point, I had forgotten about the inaugeration. How about the next Tuesday, on the 27th?
  • Reply 203 of 236
    wijgwijg Posts: 99member
    I wanted the new mini. Poo.



    I don't expect anything for the 25th anniversary and here's why:

    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-01/ff_mac





    As far as this built-in battery goes, I expect a patent lawsuit to eventually be filed by Oak Ridge Micro-Energy Inc. --Unless it's revealed that Apple licensed the tech. (I should probably mention that I own stock in OKME--purchased speculatively with the idea that battery tech will be big in the future--and that I haven't done well with the stock. I stand to profit from any good news about OKME.)
  • Reply 204 of 236
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WIJG View Post


    I wanted the new mini. Poo.



    ...As far as this built-in battery goes, I expect a patent lawsuit to eventually be filed by Oak Ridge Micro-Energy Inc. --Unless it's revealed that Apple licensed the tech. (I should probably mention that I own stock in OKME--purchased speculatively with the idea that battery tech will be big in the future--and that I haven't done well with the stock. I stand to profit from any good news about OKME.)



    OKME looks like (with just a couple of staff) they are all about putting the battery inside the chip. Thats no what Apple are doing is it? Apple seem to be using custom size and shape cells for better overall density, then using singular cell monitoring to improve charge & discharge.

    Why would OKME be able to take out a lawsuit?
  • Reply 205 of 236
    wijgwijg Posts: 99member
    OKME does thin film batteries that operate under extreme conditions, lasting a long time. That seems to be what Apple is doing. I think OKME's batteries aren't so much directly related to chips (but I could be wrong).



    Of course, I have no reason to believe there's any basis for a lawsuit. I'm shamelessly pimping my stock! I thought I'd disclosed that adequately. Lawsuits get filed faster than hats fall--especially against Apple.
  • Reply 206 of 236
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    how is comparing something from years and years and years ago relevant to the discussion?



    Well let's see: Blu-Ray is being adopted faster than DVD did in it's first two years, so I suppose the relevance would be that if Apple was quick to add DVD playback to the Mac in the late 90's, they should be even quicker to add Blu-Ray support. Or do you think Apple jumped the gun on that whole DVD niche thing?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    We are talking about BRD vs DVD today!



    try this genius..!! ( from MCVUK.com) UK based.



    The best-selling movie of the year was Warner Bros’ The Dark Knight, selling 281,000 copies. This still pales compared to the best-selling DVD of the year though – Universal’s Mamma Mia managed three million sales on DVD in just its first week of sale in the UK.



    So, one tenth of the population is just supposed to accept they can't play their films on even a $2800 Mac? When every other computer manufacturer offers the capability? I mean, despite the 400% sales increase of Blu-Ray discs during the month of December in the UK, heaven forbid UK Mac users be able to play those new 1.5 million discs in their computers, right? I mean really, who needs to be able to play those 1.7 million Blu-Ray copies of the Dark Knight? That would be silly. Or you know, maybe since the number of Blu-Ray discs sold of a single movie outnumbers Apple's monthly computer sales by two to one, they ought to think about supporting those discs? just a thought.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    egg?



    just a small triumphant smile...



    What is your triumph? That every Mac user has to watch the same shitty quality video as you?
  • Reply 207 of 236
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThinkingDifferent View Post


    What happens after 1000 recharges? A full recharge is an everyday occurrence for me.



    You buy a new battery. In 3 to 5 years,



    If you have any access to 110AC or a cigarette lighter, you are better off to use it as much as you can. The new batteries employ Adaptive Charging "?which reduces the wear and tear on the battery and gives it a much longer lifespan than ever before ? up to five years."



    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/
  • Reply 208 of 236
    abster2coreabster2core Posts: 2,501member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Apple stated for the iPhone that 300 charges would reduce your battery charge to 80% of the original. This seems to be a pretty standard measure.



    And if you calibrate it as directed and keep it topped up it should last for at least 3 years. Never had a cell phone for more that 2 years.



    Love my mobile inverter that I just bought from Walmart for $10.
  • Reply 209 of 236
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shodson View Post


    I'm loving those new 17" MBPs, yum! But I'll probably wait until Snow Leopard comes out.



    Why would you want to wait for SL? to save money on the OS? or some other reason?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrJedi View Post


    Who buys these things? I'm one of them. And I'm not rich, nor do I have tons of money to throw around, but I'm more of a nomad with a tiny flat with very little room for TVs, desktop computers, etc. I travel about 5 months a year and I can't stand being constrained by tiny screens. I'm not even a pro, but I demand pro features and performance in a portable that I can take anywhere. I use my MacBook Pro to arrange music that I write, plug my guitar into it via a MAudio Blackbox, DJ using DJ1800 ,all the sundry internet cr@p we all do like posting on forums, watching YouTube videos, etc, and yes I game on it, too. As I only want to own one computer that must double as a video player / tv , hi fi stereo, and gaming platform, the 17" suits me perfectly.

    Now with the matte screen option (as I hate reflections on my screen) and at 17" the unibody MacBook Pro is nearly ideal. What's missing is a BluRay read/write drive and a better GPU (and an extra FW port). So I can wait to upgrade for a a model or two, until Apple gets on the Blu-Ray train. But with the matte screen I'm back to considering a new 17" MacBook Pro in the near future



    I am in the same boat, less traveling and a smaller flat.. I am trying to hold out for the best 17" purchase ....but am gaging for a new machine (rocking a PB 1.5 from 2004 and running a ecommece shop, and 4 websites).....When would be the next refresh of the 17"? Oct? April 2010?



    and the 30" display? any guesses?
  • Reply 210 of 236
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    You buy a new battery. In 3 to 5 years,



    If you have any access to 110AC or a cigarette lighter, you are better off to use it as much as you can. The new batteries employ Adaptive Charging "?which reduces the wear and tear on the battery and gives it a much longer lifespan than ever before ? up to five years."



    http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/17inch-battery/



    Why should you have to buy an Apple battery?
  • Reply 211 of 236
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


    record compared to what exactly...??



    oh yes BRD last year, not exactly tricky to see why now is it??



    if you look at the actual figures (compared to DVD) it isn't impressive at all.



    Compared to everything that sold this season. What sold more compared to last year? Not HDTVS, not iPods- WHAT? It's the biggest grower -bar none. And Apple is totally behind the eight ball on this one.
  • Reply 212 of 236
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    You have no clue. Microsoft has said themselves that the average Office user uses less than 5 % of the functionality of Word/Excel.



    And by the looks of the crap that hits my disk, they do a hell of a poor job of what they do use.



    It is obvious that you haven't taken the time to trial iWorks or iworks.com.



    But then again, how can you? You don't have a Mac or Mobile Me in the first place.



    TOTALLY CLUELESS- 99.9999% of Corporate America and the World use Excel- you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
  • Reply 213 of 236
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Why should you have to buy an Apple battery?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    TOTALLY CLUELESS- 99.9999% of Corporate America and the World use Excel- you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.



    In your unrelenting true form you have failed to comphrehend what was stated...



    1) The battery lasts for 5 years so you shouldn't have to replace it. If you do, their will be 3rd-party options, just like there are for the iPhone. How many notebook batteries have you had to change because they couldn't hold a charge from normal wear and tear?



    2) Stating that only one in 10,000 don't use Excel is hyperbole, but you apparently read "use 5% of the functionality" differently than 99.9999% of everyone else on this forum, assuming we gave exactly 10,000 AI readers on this thread.
  • Reply 214 of 236
    It looks like replacing the battery would be about as involved as swapping in a new hard drive, just need the right size screwdriver and 5-10 minutes.
  • Reply 215 of 236
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    It looks like replacing the battery would be about as involved as swapping in a new hard drive, just need the right size screwdriver and 5-10 minutes.



    10 screws to get the bottom panel off.
  • Reply 216 of 236
    ajaxajax Posts: 4member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    A 1,000 full charges. Incremental charging or topping off are not factored. As Apple recommends, you should re-calibrate i.e., fully charge and discharge your battery once a month. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1490



    As such, under ideal circumstances, (see article above on temperature, storage and optimal settings, etc., the battery on the should last nearly 83 years. However, nothing is ever ideal.



    Wow! Much as I would love to see a battery that is designed to last 83 years, that, unfortunately is not how they are rated. A cycle count is simply charging and using 100% of the battery's charge capacity. Whether that's all at once, watching DVDs in economy class, or spread out over 3 days: using 30% of the battery life then charging one day, then 50% and charging the next and finally 20% and charging on the third day. Any time you use and charge 100% of the battery's "Full charge capacity," that's one cycle count.



    Current batteries are rated to have 80% of their initial charge capacity after 300 cycles. For a mainly desk bound, light user 300 cycles could be two years. For a heavy, frequent traveling user that can be much, much less (I just got a new battery 40 days ago and I'm already at 57 cycles...) Does that mean you will have 60% after 600 cycles? No, the battery degrades very quickly after that first 300. By around 350 cycles you can probably expect around a third of the initial charge.



    Would charging and using the battery less frequently extend the life? To a point, however, just leaving a lithium-ion/polymer battery plugged in all of the time is actually worse than moderately frequent usage. The monthly calibration cycle that Apple recommends serves two purposes:

    1- calibrate the computer to the battery, so that the computer knows what the battery is currently capable of and reflects that properly in the menu bar

    2- to get those who leave their portable plugged in all of the time to, at least, get one full discharge every month.



    What really kills a battery is heat. If you use your portable as Apple recommends, only on a hard, flat surface you'll have a good long lifespan for you battery. If, however, you're using the portable while it's sitting on the duvet on your bed, the trapped heat is very quickly degrading the battery. Expect a much shorter lifespan. In fact, heavy users (one or more cycles per day) are doing most of the damage by the heat stress of discharging and charging, rather than the normal chemical degradation.



    If you're getting 3+ years of usable life with a battery, you're very lucky. Officially, Apple doesn't cover portable batteries, even under Apple Care, over the first year unless the battery isn't being recognized, or is bulging, or.... There is some leeway involving an analysis of the Full Charge Capacity and the Cycle Count - but that's proprietary knowledge.



    Trust me, I know about this stuff... What's that? You don't? Fine, read this: http://www.apple.com/batteries/ look about halfway down at the charge cycle graphic and read all the sidebars.
  • Reply 217 of 236
    thttht Posts: 5,530member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Yeahrightwhatever View Post


    Likely a PC with the same battery and specs would see 5 hours at best when running Vista. Anandtech has a pretty good review (though his choice of settings and methodology has caused some controversy) that suggest OSX is about 2X better at using battery power when comparing similar/same hardware. This difference could be one of the major selling points if Apple seizes on it.



    I think I agree with Anand on OS X being more power efficient than Vista or XP. MS simply doesn't optimize Windows to be very power efficient. They really can't as there are too many different configurations to support, and they really can't employ a deep power management strategy as what works for one configuration may fubar another.



    Quote:

    We know Apple has the thinnest notebook at 17'' (nothing else is below 1.2'' i think) but both HP and Dell offer 6.5 pound 17'' notebooks. 6.5<6.6 in my book.



    Really? I looked. But I did not find any lighter than 7 lbs. Granted, Dell's and HP's websites are complicated mazes to wade through, but I didn't find any. Care to say which models? Apple is very precise in its marketing taglines. It should be true, at least for all shipping models from all reputable manufacturers.
  • Reply 218 of 236
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by THT View Post


    I think I agree with Anand on OS X being more power efficient than Vista or XP.



    What bothered me about that article is that he only tested Vista and OS X. We know that Vista has issues and it's a resource hog, but we don't know how the well-weathered and still dominate XP faired against these other OSes. People asked in the comments and it was never tested.
  • Reply 219 of 236
    Hi. Couple of things.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    If there was a worse keynote since Jobs returned, nobody has yet been able to figure out which one it was. It's a simple thing to prove, if there was a worse one, we can all look it up and see exactly what was announced.



    I'm happy to be able to clear this up. I've always remembered this MacWorld, because it was definitively the worst Apple keynote I've ever seen. At MacWorld SF 2000, Jobs introduced: Aqua. That's it. No hardware. At all. It seems that "cool new hardware" seems to be the definitive measuring stick for keynote excitement, and this one had absolutely none of it. It had nothing really at all, when you consider that Mac OS X and its Aqua interface wasn't even available in public beta form until 9 months later; the final version five months after that. http://www.macintouch.com/mwsf2000.html



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guppy737 View Post


    Mark my words, there's a 9 out of 10 chance that what they are calling the "anti-glare" screen is the same damn matte screen they had in the old 17 inch hurriedly retrofitted to fit in the unibody 17 inch.



    What makes you think that the glossy screen in the new 17" MacBook Pro isn't the "same damn" glossy screen they had in the old 17" model? Let's compare:



    Old MacBook Pro 17": 17-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display with support for millions of colors; optional antiglare display, with a native resolution of 1920x1200.



    New MacBook Pro 17": 17-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display with support for millions of colors; optional antiglare display, with a native resolution of 1920x1200.



    Yes, it's the same screen. Glossy, matte, whatever you want, it's the same screen. What makes you think there's some conspiracy happening on the anti-glare option?
  • Reply 220 of 236
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lordyoupeoplearedense View Post


    Yes, it's the same screen. Glossy, matte, whatever you want, it's the same screen. What makes you think there's some conspiracy happening on the anti-glare option?



    Didn't Phil say it was a new screen during the Keynote?



    The best screen they've ever fitted to a notebook?



    Higher colour gamut etc. etc.?
Sign In or Register to comment.