You can fix lots of problems with this that you otherwise would need to take the drive out. It only works with fw so the new 15" usb-only laptops can no longer do this.
Hey, you learned something today!
The 13" MacBooks are the ones without FW, the 15" MacBook Pros still have it.
Yeah, and it only costs $1000 more. Weighs a whole 3 pounds more, requires a massive 210 Watt AC Adapter and gets a whopping 2 hours of battery life. Not to mention many of the reviews I've read say it is pretty unstable, and it is considered a Mobile Workstation, and NOT a Notebook, so it is NOT a competing model.
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD
Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,849
Dell Precision M6400 64-bit
2.53GHz Core 2 Quad (12MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M (512MB, professional GPU.. *expensive*)
Yeah, and it only costs $1000 more. Weighs a whole 3 pounds more, requires a massive 210 Watt AC Adapter and gets a whopping 2 hours of battery life. Not to mention many of the reviews I've read say it is pretty unstable, and it is considered a Mobile Workstation, and NOT a Notebook, so it is NOT a competing model.
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
edit: Yes, the 8GB RAM upgrade adds a lot of cost to the Macbook Pro because it only has 2 RAM slots requiring 4GB modules. Regardless, 8GB is 8GB and there is no other way to do it. If you back the memory down to 4GB, it becomes more competitive features/price wise, but the Dell still has better features. And for business users and consumers who aren't price sensitive, the Dell Precision (and XPS in fact) can be heavily upgraded with unique features.
It looks like access to the HD will be easy once you get past the bottom panel.
That's a pretty funky motherboard shape
I don't own a new unibody macbook, but how easy is it to undo the screws on the bottom of the case? Are they under the "pads"? Knowing the relative easy of doing a swap-out may entice me to pick up one of these in the future
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
edit: Yes, the 8GB RAM upgrade adds a lot of cost to the Macbook Pro because it only has 2 RAM slots requiring 4GB modules. Regardless, 8GB is 8GB and there is no other way to do it. If you back the memory down to 4GB, it becomes more competitive features/price wise, but the Dell still has better features. And for business users and consumers who aren't price sensitive, the Dell Precision (and XPS in fact) can be heavily upgraded with unique features.
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD
Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,849
Dell Precision M6400 17"
2.53GHz Core 2 Quad (12MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M (512MB, pro GPU)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,774
===============================================
Prosumer/Cheaper model comparison
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
4.0GB DDR3 RAM
320GB 7200RPM
Nvidia 9600M GT
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED
$3200
Dell XPS M1730 17"
2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
4.0GB DDR2 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
DUAL Nvidia 8700M GT SLI with 512MB per card
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED
$3267
I will admit I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the Specs on Dell's site, (because you didn't really specify which model, and because Dell's Alphabet Soup of model numbers on their poorly organized website didn't warrant me wasting my time.) but you really should look at the owner reviews for the M6400, most of the "Cons" speak of how unstable they are. Regardless, since there is no real definition of what "Pro" means Apple can call it Pro if they want because it will run all of their Pro Software like Final Cut Studio and Shake, something none of these Dell's will do.
I think this is a fantastic machine. I usually have a nit or two, but not with this.
The battery is of course user-replaceable; it's simply not meant for regular swapping, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. This isn't planned obsolescence at all. Unlike the iPhone/iPod, the case is easy to open with a screwdriver. This is a very maintainable machine.
And it has a glassless option! A Pro for pro's! I only wish they do this for the 15" Pro as well, but that's one of my nits for the 15" rather than a comment on the 17".
I simply see nothing wrong with this model, and I think the price is actually very low for what you are getting. I do have only one concern about the defective 9600 chips that still appear to be in the pipeline, so I'd wait a month or two before getting this and see if anybody reports problems. Other than that, I hope the non-glossy, non-glass option and superior color go into the next 15" update. Maybe the internal battery as well.
I don't own a new unibody macbook, but how easy is it to undo the screws on the bottom of the case? Are they under the "pads"? Knowing the relative easy of doing a swap-out may entice me to pick up one of these in the future
No, all 10 screws are easily accessible on the bottom. I would imagine it would take no more than 3 minutes to get the bottom panel off.
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
edit: Yes, the 8GB RAM upgrade adds a lot of cost to the Macbook Pro because it only has 2 RAM slots requiring 4GB modules. Regardless, 8GB is 8GB and there is no other way to do it. If you back the memory down to 4GB, it becomes more competitive features/price wise, but the Dell still has better features. And for business users and consumers who aren't price sensitive, the Dell Precision (and XPS in fact) can be heavily upgraded with unique features.
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD
Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,849
Dell Precision M6400 17"
2.53GHz Core 2 Quad (12MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M (512MB, pro GPU)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,774
===============================================
Prosumer/Cheaper model comparison
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
4.0GB DDR3 RAM
320GB 7200RPM
Nvidia 9600M GT
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED
$3200
Dell XPS M1730 17"
2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
4.0GB DDR2 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
DUAL Nvidia 8700M GT SLI with 512MB per card
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED
$3267
I don't understand how you can compare those and list what the Dell has the Apple doesn't but not list the advantages apple has (lighter, better battery life). Those things are features Apple has chosen. Perhaps you discount them, (as you seem to at the beginning of your post) but frankly I'm quite certain there are many purchasers who don't.
It depends on what is more important, and Apples calculus is that the lighter weight and better battery life will, in the aggregate, win them more sales than a heavier model with poor battery life but better in other areas.
upon repeat viewing of schiller's speech yesterday, it does appear that the anti-glare simply means the removal of the glass top of the mbp15, so we are back to fingerprints on the plastic led cover.
i have on order the 2.8g mbp15 with the 7k drive and i am puzzled over this option as some anti-glare without glass may not be all that great.
i have seen the new mbp15 next to my 2007 mbp17 screen and i prefer the mbp15's glass screen. i am a power final cut studio and photoshop user.
paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by mab
Can anyone confirm that the matte screen is "non-glass"?
upon repeat viewing of schiller's speech yesterday, it does appear that the anti-glare simply means the removal of the glass top of the mbp15, so we are back to fingerprints on the plastic led cover.
i have on order the 2.8g mbp15 with the 7k drive and i am puzzled over this option as some anti-glare without glass may not be all that great.
i have seen the new mbp15 next to my 2007 mbp17 screen and i prefer the mbp15's glass screen. i am a power final cut studio and photoshop user.
paul
I have spent forever on the phone with Apple, after ordering a new 17inch unibody 2.9GHz, with 8M. I don't want the extra bezel. The website clearly states, quote "In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable."
If I don't get an answer by Friday - I will attempt to cancel until I find out
I have spent forever on the phone with Apple, after ordering a new 17inch unibody 2.9GHz, with 8M. I don't want the extra bezel. The website clearly states, quote "In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable."
If I don't get an answer by Friday - I will attempt to cancel until I find out
Removing the glass alone won't do it, I've serviced a couple dozen iMacs and what you find after removing the Glass is a glossy LCD beneath it.
I don't understand how you can compare those and list what the Dell has the Apple doesn't but not list the advantages apple has (lighter, better battery life). Those things are features Apple has chosen. Perhaps you discount them, (as you seem to at the beginning of your post) but frankly I'm quite certain there are many purchasers who don't.
It depends on what is more important, and Apples calculus is that the lighter weight and better battery life will, in the aggregate, win them more sales than a heavier model with poor battery life but better in other areas.
And as soon a people start writing applications that make good use of the multiple processor cores for Windows, you might actually see a performance increase on the Quad Core, Vista still doesn't even do a great job at that. Leopard does a better job and applications on the Mac do as well because they hand that control to the OS. Snow Leopard will be better yet.
The matte option is very welcome but hopefully they'll do the same for the lower models too.
I like the silver bezel on the matte option and helps users identify which type they have.
Quad core on the 17" would have made people feel like it was worth the money but it would likely draw too much power and they are trying to save as much as possible. Plus if it's in line with other manufacturers it's ok.
As others have mentioned though, it's still the wrong machine to be focussing on as far as the economy is concerned. Unless their margins are really high of course. Part of the reason for this recession was tax breaks for the rich so they have money to burn.
I have spent forever on the phone with Apple, after ordering a new 17inch unibody 2.9GHz, with 8M. I don't want the extra bezel. The website clearly states, quote "In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable."
If I don't get an answer by Friday - I will attempt to cancel until I find out
You can't have glass on a matte screen as it would be glossy!
You can't have glass on a matte screen as it would be glossy!
It is silly, but I thought that's exactly what they did with the new iMacs.
But the way it was worded sounds like it could be a different treatment than just a diffuse texture, because there are very good non-matte antiglare treatments that computer companies seem to have forgotten about. The old glossy MacBook Pro screen had a lighter-duty version of this, some kind of odd diffractive coating, but better treatments are available.
at least one vendor i spoke to this morning said the matte is one without any glass on top.
the 1920x1200 will be one of the latest from aapl's chinese vendor; whoever that is....
almost all of these lcd panels have a plastic sheet on top.
while durable, they are at times hard to clean, if oil ever gets on it. which is all the time, if you travel.
there had been some sony panels that have used glass on top, but cannot recall if it is sony or toshiba. googling did not help me.
as for high, really high end monitors and broadcast monitors, up to 4k screens for proofing and production. they are neither matte or glass plated glossy. just a typical plastic polarizing filter over the glass lcd plate.
the glass on top is a great protective idea, why aapl did not used a finer polarizing material is puzzling.
paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
It is silly, but I thought that's exactly what they did with the new iMacs.
But the way it was worded sounds like it could be a different treatment than just a diffuse texture, because there are very good non-matte antiglare treatments that computer companies seem to have forgotten about. The old glossy MacBook Pro screen had a lighter-duty version of this, some kind of odd diffractive coating, but better treatments are available.
Comments
b/c if you hose your startup internal drive you can still start it in fw target disk mode.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1661
You can fix lots of problems with this that you otherwise would need to take the drive out. It only works with fw so the new 15" usb-only laptops can no longer do this.
Hey, you learned something today!
The 13" MacBooks are the ones without FW, the 15" MacBook Pros still have it.
Yeah, and it only costs $1000 more. Weighs a whole 3 pounds more, requires a massive 210 Watt AC Adapter and gets a whopping 2 hours of battery life. Not to mention many of the reviews I've read say it is pretty unstable, and it is considered a Mobile Workstation, and NOT a Notebook, so it is NOT a competing model.
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD
Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,849
Dell Precision M6400 64-bit
2.53GHz Core 2 Quad (12MB-L2)
8.0GB DDR3 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M (512MB, professional GPU.. *expensive*)
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED backlit
$4,774
===============================================
Prosumer/Cheaper model comparison
MB Pro 17"
2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
4.0GB DDR3 RAM
320GB 7200RPM
Nvidia 9600M GT
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED
$3200
Dell XPS M1730
2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
4.0GB DDR2 RAM
128GB SSD _and_ 250GB 7200RPM (dual drive slots)
DUAL Nvidia 8700M GT with 512MB per card
DVD-RW
1920x1200 LED
$3267
Yeah, and it only costs $1000 more. Weighs a whole 3 pounds more, requires a massive 210 Watt AC Adapter and gets a whopping 2 hours of battery life. Not to mention many of the reviews I've read say it is pretty unstable, and it is considered a Mobile Workstation, and NOT a Notebook, so it is NOT a competing model.
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
edit: Yes, the 8GB RAM upgrade adds a lot of cost to the Macbook Pro because it only has 2 RAM slots requiring 4GB modules. Regardless, 8GB is 8GB and there is no other way to do it. If you back the memory down to 4GB, it becomes more competitive features/price wise, but the Dell still has better features. And for business users and consumers who aren't price sensitive, the Dell Precision (and XPS in fact) can be heavily upgraded with unique features.
MB Pro 17"
- 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
- 8.0GB DDR3 RAM
- 128GB SSD
- Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
- DVD-RW
- 1920x1200 LED backlit
- $4,849
Dell Precision M6400 17"===============================================
Prosumer/Cheaper model comparison
MB Pro 17"
- 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
- 4.0GB DDR3 RAM
- 320GB 7200RPM
- Nvidia 9600M GT
- DVD-RW
- 1920x1200 LED
- $3200
Dell XPS M1730 17"This is what the internals look like:
It looks like access to the HD will be easy once you get past the bottom panel.
That's a pretty funky motherboard shape
I don't own a new unibody macbook, but how easy is it to undo the screws on the bottom of the case? Are they under the "pads"? Knowing the relative easy of doing a swap-out may entice me to pick up one of these in the future
The 13" MacBooks are the ones without FW, the 15" MacBook Pros still have it.
and hey *I* learned something new today. Thanks for the correction.
The new MacBook Pro was not the 'One More thing' item at the keynote.
It was the third new product introduced.
iTunes was the 'One more thing'!!
How hard is this?
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
edit: Yes, the 8GB RAM upgrade adds a lot of cost to the Macbook Pro because it only has 2 RAM slots requiring 4GB modules. Regardless, 8GB is 8GB and there is no other way to do it. If you back the memory down to 4GB, it becomes more competitive features/price wise, but the Dell still has better features. And for business users and consumers who aren't price sensitive, the Dell Precision (and XPS in fact) can be heavily upgraded with unique features.
MB Pro 17"
- 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
- 8.0GB DDR3 RAM
- 128GB SSD
- Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
- DVD-RW
- 1920x1200 LED backlit
- $4,849
Dell Precision M6400 17"===============================================
Prosumer/Cheaper model comparison
MB Pro 17"
- 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
- 4.0GB DDR3 RAM
- 320GB 7200RPM
- Nvidia 9600M GT
- DVD-RW
- 1920x1200 LED
- $3200
Dell XPS M1730 17"I will admit I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the Specs on Dell's site, (because you didn't really specify which model, and because Dell's Alphabet Soup of model numbers on their poorly organized website didn't warrant me wasting my time.) but you really should look at the owner reviews for the M6400, most of the "Cons" speak of how unstable they are. Regardless, since there is no real definition of what "Pro" means Apple can call it Pro if they want because it will run all of their Pro Software like Final Cut Studio and Shake, something none of these Dell's will do.
The battery is of course user-replaceable; it's simply not meant for regular swapping, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. This isn't planned obsolescence at all. Unlike the iPhone/iPod, the case is easy to open with a screwdriver. This is a very maintainable machine.
And it has a glassless option! A Pro for pro's! I only wish they do this for the 15" Pro as well, but that's one of my nits for the 15" rather than a comment on the 17".
I simply see nothing wrong with this model, and I think the price is actually very low for what you are getting. I do have only one concern about the defective 9600 chips that still appear to be in the pipeline, so I'd wait a month or two before getting this and see if anybody reports problems. Other than that, I hope the non-glossy, non-glass option and superior color go into the next 15" update. Maybe the internal battery as well.
That's a pretty funky motherboard shape
I don't own a new unibody macbook, but how easy is it to undo the screws on the bottom of the case? Are they under the "pads"? Knowing the relative easy of doing a swap-out may entice me to pick up one of these in the future
No, all 10 screws are easily accessible on the bottom. I would imagine it would take no more than 3 minutes to get the bottom panel off.
Other than that, I hope the non-glossy, non-glass option and superior color go into the next 15" update. Maybe the internal battery as well.
Actually, On the contrary the reviews I've read say the recent mobile Precisions are good machines, and they are NOT more expensive than the MB Pro. Indeed the battery life is poor, and it is not thin or lightweight as the MB Pro, but we are talking about a desktop replacement essentially. If I wanted portability, I'd get a macbook Air or the standard 13" Macbook. And yes, they are considered workstations, but Apple calls theirs the "Macbook Pro", so whats the difference? On the consumer side, Dell's XPS models are much better than the junky Inspirons -- although the 17" needs to be updated to the sleek look and thinness of the XPS 13"/15".
Anyways, here is a comparison of two different Dell models to the Macbook Pro.
Workstation/Pro level comparison
edit: Yes, the 8GB RAM upgrade adds a lot of cost to the Macbook Pro because it only has 2 RAM slots requiring 4GB modules. Regardless, 8GB is 8GB and there is no other way to do it. If you back the memory down to 4GB, it becomes more competitive features/price wise, but the Dell still has better features. And for business users and consumers who aren't price sensitive, the Dell Precision (and XPS in fact) can be heavily upgraded with unique features.
MB Pro 17"
- 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo (6MB-L2)
- 8.0GB DDR3 RAM
- 128GB SSD
- Nvidia 9600M GT (512MB)
- DVD-RW
- 1920x1200 LED backlit
- $4,849
Dell Precision M6400 17"===============================================
Prosumer/Cheaper model comparison
MB Pro 17"
- 2.93Ghz Core 2 Duo
- 4.0GB DDR3 RAM
- 320GB 7200RPM
- Nvidia 9600M GT
- DVD-RW
- 1920x1200 LED
- $3200
Dell XPS M1730 17"I don't understand how you can compare those and list what the Dell has the Apple doesn't but not list the advantages apple has (lighter, better battery life). Those things are features Apple has chosen. Perhaps you discount them, (as you seem to at the beginning of your post) but frankly I'm quite certain there are many purchasers who don't.
It depends on what is more important, and Apples calculus is that the lighter weight and better battery life will, in the aggregate, win them more sales than a heavier model with poor battery life but better in other areas.
i have on order the 2.8g mbp15 with the 7k drive and i am puzzled over this option as some anti-glare without glass may not be all that great.
i have seen the new mbp15 next to my 2007 mbp17 screen and i prefer the mbp15's glass screen. i am a power final cut studio and photoshop user.
paul
Can anyone confirm that the matte screen is "non-glass"?
upon repeat viewing of schiller's speech yesterday, it does appear that the anti-glare simply means the removal of the glass top of the mbp15, so we are back to fingerprints on the plastic led cover.
i have on order the 2.8g mbp15 with the 7k drive and i am puzzled over this option as some anti-glare without glass may not be all that great.
i have seen the new mbp15 next to my 2007 mbp17 screen and i prefer the mbp15's glass screen. i am a power final cut studio and photoshop user.
paul
I have spent forever on the phone with Apple, after ordering a new 17inch unibody 2.9GHz, with 8M. I don't want the extra bezel. The website clearly states, quote "In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable."
If I don't get an answer by Friday - I will attempt to cancel until I find out
I have spent forever on the phone with Apple, after ordering a new 17inch unibody 2.9GHz, with 8M. I don't want the extra bezel. The website clearly states, quote "In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable."
If I don't get an answer by Friday - I will attempt to cancel until I find out
Removing the glass alone won't do it, I've serviced a couple dozen iMacs and what you find after removing the Glass is a glossy LCD beneath it.
I don't understand how you can compare those and list what the Dell has the Apple doesn't but not list the advantages apple has (lighter, better battery life). Those things are features Apple has chosen. Perhaps you discount them, (as you seem to at the beginning of your post) but frankly I'm quite certain there are many purchasers who don't.
It depends on what is more important, and Apples calculus is that the lighter weight and better battery life will, in the aggregate, win them more sales than a heavier model with poor battery life but better in other areas.
And as soon a people start writing applications that make good use of the multiple processor cores for Windows, you might actually see a performance increase on the Quad Core, Vista still doesn't even do a great job at that. Leopard does a better job and applications on the Mac do as well because they hand that control to the OS. Snow Leopard will be better yet.
I like the silver bezel on the matte option and helps users identify which type they have.
Quad core on the 17" would have made people feel like it was worth the money but it would likely draw too much power and they are trying to save as much as possible. Plus if it's in line with other manufacturers it's ok.
As others have mentioned though, it's still the wrong machine to be focussing on as far as the economy is concerned. Unless their margins are really high of course. Part of the reason for this recession was tax breaks for the rich so they have money to burn.
I have spent forever on the phone with Apple, after ordering a new 17inch unibody 2.9GHz, with 8M. I don't want the extra bezel. The website clearly states, quote "In addition, the seamless glass enclosure makes the display stronger and more durable."
If I don't get an answer by Friday - I will attempt to cancel until I find out
You can't have glass on a matte screen as it would be glossy!
You can't have glass on a matte screen as it would be glossy!
It is silly, but I thought that's exactly what they did with the new iMacs.
But the way it was worded sounds like it could be a different treatment than just a diffuse texture, because there are very good non-matte antiglare treatments that computer companies seem to have forgotten about. The old glossy MacBook Pro screen had a lighter-duty version of this, some kind of odd diffractive coating, but better treatments are available.
the 1920x1200 will be one of the latest from aapl's chinese vendor; whoever that is....
almost all of these lcd panels have a plastic sheet on top.
while durable, they are at times hard to clean, if oil ever gets on it. which is all the time, if you travel.
there had been some sony panels that have used glass on top, but cannot recall if it is sony or toshiba. googling did not help me.
as for high, really high end monitors and broadcast monitors, up to 4k screens for proofing and production. they are neither matte or glass plated glossy. just a typical plastic polarizing filter over the glass lcd plate.
the glass on top is a great protective idea, why aapl did not used a finer polarizing material is puzzling.
paul
It is silly, but I thought that's exactly what they did with the new iMacs.
But the way it was worded sounds like it could be a different treatment than just a diffuse texture, because there are very good non-matte antiglare treatments that computer companies seem to have forgotten about. The old glossy MacBook Pro screen had a lighter-duty version of this, some kind of odd diffractive coating, but better treatments are available.
Can anyone confirm that the matte screen is "non-glass"?
I am not sure, but it looks like its non-glass