Sony PS3 uses an optional remote to control the Blu-Ray DVD for watching movies. Yes you can use the game controller, but you can also buy an optional remote from Sony for this purpose. It's not included.
The controller IS the remote. The separate one is just a more conventional remote shape.
Quote:
You can do everything the MB/MBP remote does by some other means on the machines (keyboard, touchpad, mouse), but the remote is now an option.
All that assumes that you are at the machine rather than several feet away. Besides, where is that menu button to call up front row?
Quote:
It's the way of things. They don't include a remote in the Mac Pro either, and will likely not include it in future versions of the iMac if they haven't stopped already.
The comparison fails. The Mac Pro never had an IR reciever at all, there's no way a remote could work with it without a third party add-on. I think that's unfortunate, it seems like they could have included one when they revised the faceplate.
I think with an iMac, it's possible they will drop it, but it's less likely because they're trying to promote that as an entertainment system for the den.
The Mac Pro never had an IR reciever at all. I think that's unfortunate, it seems like they could have included one when they revised the faceplate.
That would be a bad place to put it. Towers are often on the floor and out of the way. When the new Cinema Displays come out?if they come out?I suspect they will included, along with high-res iSight cameras, in the display on the USB bus.
Quote:
I think with an iMac, it's possible they will drop it, but it's less likely because they're trying to promote that as an entertainment system for the den.
I think they included the remotes to promote Front Row, but I think they may even drop them from the iMac now that AppleTV is gaining some headway.
Segue...
AppleTV is currently #161 and #518 on Amazon for the 160GB and 40GB models, respectively, for "all electronics". And #1 on Amazon for the 160GB model for "video capture devices" and #49 for the 40GB model for "networking & online communications".
There is only one media extender even registers as competition and that is because it's a PVR, too. On top of that, it only competes with the 40GB ranking and not the 160GB AppleTV ranking.
The point of that is show, IMO, that remotes are no longer needed as the AppleTV will promote itself as the entertainment center for the Den.
Not everyone wants the remote. It's a good way for Apple to make more money and produce less waste (an unused remote is waste).
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Who sells a product that uses a remote without including the remote? NOBODY!
I can understand not including certain cables but the machine accepts a remote- INCLUDE IT!
This is a bad business policy and hurts goodwill. Not everybody already owns the remote- this is CHEESY.
As stated by Mr. H it's a waste of money and resources for Apple to give it away to everyone, because not everyone uses it. Financially for Apple it makes no sense to keep including them.
We should be glad Apple isn't wasting it's money on giving away silly remotes, I'd much rather see them spend that money on R&D for better products in the future.
Exactly...can you blame them? I'm sure they have looked into the whole situation and found that many people never used the remote even with it being free. Here's a quick "what if" scenario for you:
Let's say they sell 1 million laptops. At the $19 retail value they just saved $19 million.
Then, suppose half of those people wanted the remote. 500,000 * $19 = 9.5 million.
So, not only did they initially save $19 million by not including it with every laptop, they also made some profit off of the ones they ended up selling to people who would actually use them and not waste them.
So you're right, it is all about the money. I wouldn't mind an extra $28.5 million in my pocket. Even for Apple that's a lot of money that could be put to good use.
Right now I'm tempted to buy the MBP base-model with 250GB HD and upgrade the RAM to 4GB myself.
Does the decrease in L2-cache make that huge of a difference?
Seriously.
I do understand the importance of CPU-cache (to a certain extend),
but do I really have to be angry with Apple for 1MB less?
MB or MBP, whichever I get, it will be my primary computer and I want it to last long, a work well. (going for "Teh Snappy")
And on a sidenote; I'm planning to buy a 3.5" 750GB Samsung HD with 32MB of cache for Timemachine backups.
Should I go for a case with USB2.0 and FW400, or one with aforementioned and FW800?
Does it make a noticable difference when backing up or writing data on the MBP if I use FW800 rather than FW400?
What are you going to use it for as your "primary computer?" Word processing? Light Photoshop and a little Garage Band? Cranking out full 3D statistical models of all the dark matter in the cosmos? Your choice will depend on what you're using it for.
If you decide to buy the MB, you would not need the FW800 port for the external drive. However, if you are going for the MBP, then pay the extra few quid as the transfers speed doubles.
Exactly...can you blame them? I'm sure they have looked into the whole situation and found that many people never used the remote even with it being free. Here's a quick "what if" scenario for you:
Let's say they sell 1 million laptops. At the $19 retail value they just saved $19 million.
Then, suppose half of those people wanted the remote. 500,000 * $19 = 9.5 million.
So, not only did they initially save $19 million by not including it with every laptop, they also made some profit off of the ones they ended up selling to people who would actually use them and not waste them.
So you're right, it is all about the money. I wouldn't mind an extra $28.5 million in my pocket. Even for Apple that's a lot of money that could be put to good use.
Fine, and when Apple starts charging you for the battery as an option enjoy paying for that too. All that money they will make on the batteries will be only put to good use-right?
I'll do all the usual stuff; consuming media (my iTunes-DB holds around 7000 songs), surfing the web, editing photos (PS and iPhoto), editing movies (but not that much), I want to build my own website.
Nothing special, so to say.
For this the MB should be sufficient, but if I have the possibility, I surely would play the occasional game (MaxPayne2, KotOR1&2, Republic Commando, Ghost Recon...), which would be possible only on a MBP.
I think - correct me if I am wrong - a Mac has a higher lifetime-value than most (almost all) PCs. I'm planning to use the MB/MBP for at least four years, and I don't know which one of both is the more durable one.
I treat electronics very carefully, I've never lost one device due to improper handling or accidents.
It's hard to decide upon which one to buy, because I currently have the money to afford the MBP with the upgrades I mentioned above.
the MBP is slightly bigger, but has a bigger screen and a higher resolution
The MB has a longer battery-life, but I would be willing to invest in a second one for either model
the MBP has a real graphics card, and not a bad one either
the MBPs wifi-performance is lower than the MBs
I can upgrade the MBs harddrive myself
Completely subjective: I like the aluminium enclosure better
It quite a hard decision.
I'm a student and I don't like to buy things that last only two years.
My current laptop is a IBM Thinkpad R52, which I've been using for three years now.
(But I've had enough of Windows, hence the upcoming switch)
Thanks for the info on FW800,
and solipsism, you're saying that a current 2.4GHz Penryn based MBP should be faster than a 2.4GHz Merom based MBP?
For this the MB should be sufficient, but if I have the possibility, I surely would play the occasional game (MaxPayne2, KotOR1&2, Republic Commando, Ghost Recon...), which would be possible only on a MBP.
Sounds like the MBP if you wanna play those games.
and solipsism, you're saying that a current 2.4GHz Penryn based MBP should be faster than a 2.4GHz Merom based MBP?
I was refering to chip-over-chip pricing from Intel which makes the 2.4GHz Santa Rosa/Penryn the successor to the 2.2GHz Santa Rosa/Merom.
That is a good question regarding speed for the exact same GHz. Does Penryn over Merom make a difference in efficiency? Does the L2 Cache come into play at this point? Will SSE4 have an significant impact when programs start utilizing it? I can't begin to answer any of these questions without empirical data.
If you decide to buy the MB, you would not need the FW800 port for the external drive. However, if you are going for the MBP, then pay the extra few quid as the transfers speed doubles.
It's not a matter of need or benefit, it's just a matter of whether the port is available. It's not as if the MacBook is a weak machine, I'm pretty sure that most buyers really don't need the immense amount of power that is packed inside it. The difference between the MB and MBP is mostly just that of a few amenities - worthwhile ones, but the differences are pretty small.
Fine, and when Apple starts charging you for the battery as an option enjoy paying for that too. All that money they will make on the batteries will be only put to good use-right?
Comparing the battery to the remote is absurd. The battery is a necessity for your laptop to work. Without it, it becomes a desktop.
Without the remote, no necessary function of your laptop is effected. Without a battery you have changed the whole makeup of the laptop.
You need to find a better comparison to have a legitimate argument. By saying batteries and remotes are on the same page, would be like saying the engine and cruise control have the same significance in a car. Which obviously, they don't.
It's not a matter of need or benefit, it's just a matter of whether the port is available. It's not as if the MacBook is a weak machine, I'm pretty sure that most buyers really don't need the immense amount of power that is packed inside it. The difference between the MB and MBP is mostly just that of a few amenities - worthwhile ones, but the differences are pretty small.
That's exactly what I mean.
As of now a MBP with 4GB of RAM and a 250GB HD would cost me ?1765,-
while a MB with comparable specs would cost me ?1350,-
?415,- is pretty much money for a student like me, but I think those little positive differences (larger screen, higher resolution, LED-backlight, NVidia graphics, FW800, a standard DVI-port, metal-enclosure) could justify it over time.
As of now a MBP with 4GB of RAM and a 250GB HD would cost me ?1765,-
while a MB with comparable specs would cost me ?1350,-
?415,- is pretty much money for a student like me, but I think those little positive differences (larger screen, higher resolution, LED-backlight, NVidia graphics, FW800, a standard DVI-port, metal-enclosure) could justify it over time.
What do you guys think?
?415 is not inconsequential, especially for a student, but it does sound like you'll make use of the little things the MBP has that the MB doesn't. I have to say, in your case, I'd recommend the MBP, if you can afford it. Most people I'd say the MB, but it looks like over time you'll have a better experience with the MBP.
Just my 2 cents... which is hardly worth 2 cents anymore.
That is just a feature of glossy displays and the main reason why graphic professionals overwhelmingly prefer matte displays (and cried foul and murder when the iMacs with the glossy screens came out).
[And yes, some graphic professionals are happy with an iMac.]
Ahhh... thanks man. I knew I didn't like the glossy display on an iMac when they had a dvd playing and it was as someone said... "watch yourself watch a movie".
The Macbook air was seriously bad. You had to be perfectly in front of the display, or suddenly all color and whites were muted to a yellowish dull color.
Oh, and I am a graphic designer who deals with a lot of pre-press issue's and of course, color specific content. My 23" Cinema display has been ok, but thats because it's a pretty damn big surface and you don't move your head enough to see a change.
Comments
Thank you for the correction. Don't sentences usually begin with a capital letter?
wow...really people?
Sony PS3 uses an optional remote to control the Blu-Ray DVD for watching movies. Yes you can use the game controller, but you can also buy an optional remote from Sony for this purpose. It's not included.
The controller IS the remote. The separate one is just a more conventional remote shape.
You can do everything the MB/MBP remote does by some other means on the machines (keyboard, touchpad, mouse), but the remote is now an option.
All that assumes that you are at the machine rather than several feet away. Besides, where is that menu button to call up front row?
It's the way of things. They don't include a remote in the Mac Pro either, and will likely not include it in future versions of the iMac if they haven't stopped already.
The comparison fails. The Mac Pro never had an IR reciever at all, there's no way a remote could work with it without a third party add-on. I think that's unfortunate, it seems like they could have included one when they revised the faceplate.
I think with an iMac, it's possible they will drop it, but it's less likely because they're trying to promote that as an entertainment system for the den.
The Mac Pro never had an IR reciever at all. I think that's unfortunate, it seems like they could have included one when they revised the faceplate.
That would be a bad place to put it. Towers are often on the floor and out of the way. When the new Cinema Displays come out?if they come out?I suspect they will included, along with high-res iSight cameras, in the display on the USB bus.
I think with an iMac, it's possible they will drop it, but it's less likely because they're trying to promote that as an entertainment system for the den.
I think they included the remotes to promote Front Row, but I think they may even drop them from the iMac now that AppleTV is gaining some headway.
Segue...
AppleTV is currently #161 and #518 on Amazon for the 160GB and 40GB models, respectively, for "all electronics". And #1 on Amazon for the 160GB model for "video capture devices" and #49 for the 40GB model for "networking & online communications".
There is only one media extender even registers as competition and that is because it's a PVR, too. On top of that, it only competes with the 40GB ranking and not the 160GB AppleTV ranking.
The point of that is show, IMO, that remotes are no longer needed as the AppleTV will promote itself as the entertainment center for the Den.
Not everyone wants the remote. It's a good way for Apple to make more money and produce less waste (an unused remote is waste).
Agreed.
Who sells a product that uses a remote without including the remote? NOBODY!
I can understand not including certain cables but the machine accepts a remote- INCLUDE IT!
This is a bad business policy and hurts goodwill. Not everybody already owns the remote- this is CHEESY.
As stated by Mr. H it's a waste of money and resources for Apple to give it away to everyone, because not everyone uses it. Financially for Apple it makes no sense to keep including them.
We should be glad Apple isn't wasting it's money on giving away silly remotes, I'd much rather see them spend that money on R&D for better products in the future.
This is all about making more money- period.
Exactly...can you blame them? I'm sure they have looked into the whole situation and found that many people never used the remote even with it being free. Here's a quick "what if" scenario for you:
Let's say they sell 1 million laptops. At the $19 retail value they just saved $19 million.
Then, suppose half of those people wanted the remote. 500,000 * $19 = 9.5 million.
So, not only did they initially save $19 million by not including it with every laptop, they also made some profit off of the ones they ended up selling to people who would actually use them and not waste them.
So you're right, it is all about the money. I wouldn't mind an extra $28.5 million in my pocket. Even for Apple that's a lot of money that could be put to good use.
Right now I'm tempted to buy the MBP base-model with 250GB HD and upgrade the RAM to 4GB myself.
Does the decrease in L2-cache make that huge of a difference?
Seriously.
I do understand the importance of CPU-cache (to a certain extend),
but do I really have to be angry with Apple for 1MB less?
MB or MBP, whichever I get, it will be my primary computer and I want it to last long, a work well. (going for "Teh Snappy")
And on a sidenote; I'm planning to buy a 3.5" 750GB Samsung HD with 32MB of cache for Timemachine backups.
Should I go for a case with USB2.0 and FW400, or one with aforementioned and FW800?
Does it make a noticable difference when backing up or writing data on the MBP if I use FW800 rather than FW400?
I'm on the verge of buying a MB or a MBP.
Right now I'm tempted to buy the MBP base-model with 250GB HD and upgrade the RAM to 4GB myself.
Does the decrease in L2-cache make that huge of a difference?
Seriously.
I do understand the importance of CPU-cache (to a certain extend),
but do I really have to be angry with Apple for 1MB less?
MB or MBP, whichever I get, it will be my primary computer and I want it to last long, a work well. (going for "Teh Snappy")
And on a sidenote; I'm planning to buy a 3.5" 750GB Samsung HD with 32MB of cache for Timemachine backups.
Should I go for a case with USB2.0 and FW400, or one with aforementioned and FW800?
Does it make a noticable difference when backing up or writing data on the MBP if I use FW800 rather than FW400?
What are you going to use it for as your "primary computer?" Word processing? Light Photoshop and a little Garage Band? Cranking out full 3D statistical models of all the dark matter in the cosmos? Your choice will depend on what you're using it for.
If you decide to buy the MB, you would not need the FW800 port for the external drive. However, if you are going for the MBP, then pay the extra few quid as the transfers speed doubles.
I'm on the verge of buying a MB or a MBP.
Right now I'm tempted to buy the MBP base-model with 250GB HD and upgrade the RAM to 4GB myself.
Does the decrease in L2-cache make that huge of a difference?
Seriously.
I do understand the importance of CPU-cache (to a certain extend),
but do I really have to be angry with Apple for 1MB less?
MB or MBP, whichever I get, it will be my primary computer and I want it to last long, a work well. (going for "Teh Snappy")
And on a sidenote; I'm planning to buy a 3.5" 750GB Samsung HD with 32MB of cache for Timemachine backups.
Should I go for a case with USB2.0 and FW400, or one with aforementioned and FW800?
Does it make a noticable difference when backing up or writing data on the MBP if I use FW800 rather than FW400?
1) The L2 Cache issue is yet untested, as far as I know, but the performance for SantaRosa/Penryn over Santa Rosa/Merom is still noticeable.
2) Apple isn't the reason the Santa Rosa/Penryn chips have lass L2 over the previous model. It's the way Intel designed the chips.
3) FW800 will be noticeably faster than FW400, but this isn't an option if you get a MB.
Exactly...can you blame them? I'm sure they have looked into the whole situation and found that many people never used the remote even with it being free. Here's a quick "what if" scenario for you:
Let's say they sell 1 million laptops. At the $19 retail value they just saved $19 million.
Then, suppose half of those people wanted the remote. 500,000 * $19 = 9.5 million.
So, not only did they initially save $19 million by not including it with every laptop, they also made some profit off of the ones they ended up selling to people who would actually use them and not waste them.
So you're right, it is all about the money. I wouldn't mind an extra $28.5 million in my pocket. Even for Apple that's a lot of money that could be put to good use.
Fine, and when Apple starts charging you for the battery as an option enjoy paying for that too. All that money they will make on the batteries will be only put to good use-right?
Nothing special, so to say.
For this the MB should be sufficient, but if I have the possibility, I surely would play the occasional game (MaxPayne2, KotOR1&2, Republic Commando, Ghost Recon...), which would be possible only on a MBP.
I think - correct me if I am wrong - a Mac has a higher lifetime-value than most (almost all) PCs. I'm planning to use the MB/MBP for at least four years, and I don't know which one of both is the more durable one.
I treat electronics very carefully, I've never lost one device due to improper handling or accidents.
It's hard to decide upon which one to buy, because I currently have the money to afford the MBP with the upgrades I mentioned above.
- the MBP is slightly bigger, but has a bigger screen and a higher resolution
- The MB has a longer battery-life, but I would be willing to invest in a second one for either model
- the MBP has a real graphics card, and not a bad one either
- the MBPs wifi-performance is lower than the MBs
- I can upgrade the MBs harddrive myself
- Completely subjective: I like the aluminium enclosure better
It quite a hard decision.I'm a student and I don't like to buy things that last only two years.
My current laptop is a IBM Thinkpad R52, which I've been using for three years now.
(But I've had enough of Windows, hence the upcoming switch)
Thanks for the info on FW800,
and solipsism, you're saying that a current 2.4GHz Penryn based MBP should be faster than a 2.4GHz Merom based MBP?
For this the MB should be sufficient, but if I have the possibility, I surely would play the occasional game (MaxPayne2, KotOR1&2, Republic Commando, Ghost Recon...), which would be possible only on a MBP.
Sounds like the MBP if you wanna play those games.
and solipsism, you're saying that a current 2.4GHz Penryn based MBP should be faster than a 2.4GHz Merom based MBP?
I was refering to chip-over-chip pricing from Intel which makes the 2.4GHz Santa Rosa/Penryn the successor to the 2.2GHz Santa Rosa/Merom.
That is a good question regarding speed for the exact same GHz. Does Penryn over Merom make a difference in efficiency? Does the L2 Cache come into play at this point? Will SSE4 have an significant impact when programs start utilizing it? I can't begin to answer any of these questions without empirical data.
If you decide to buy the MB, you would not need the FW800 port for the external drive. However, if you are going for the MBP, then pay the extra few quid as the transfers speed doubles.
It's not a matter of need or benefit, it's just a matter of whether the port is available. It's not as if the MacBook is a weak machine, I'm pretty sure that most buyers really don't need the immense amount of power that is packed inside it. The difference between the MB and MBP is mostly just that of a few amenities - worthwhile ones, but the differences are pretty small.
Fine, and when Apple starts charging you for the battery as an option enjoy paying for that too. All that money they will make on the batteries will be only put to good use-right?
Comparing the battery to the remote is absurd. The battery is a necessity for your laptop to work. Without it, it becomes a desktop.
Without the remote, no necessary function of your laptop is effected. Without a battery you have changed the whole makeup of the laptop.
You need to find a better comparison to have a legitimate argument. By saying batteries and remotes are on the same page, would be like saying the engine and cruise control have the same significance in a car. Which obviously, they don't.
It's not a matter of need or benefit, it's just a matter of whether the port is available. It's not as if the MacBook is a weak machine, I'm pretty sure that most buyers really don't need the immense amount of power that is packed inside it. The difference between the MB and MBP is mostly just that of a few amenities - worthwhile ones, but the differences are pretty small.
That's exactly what I mean.
As of now a MBP with 4GB of RAM and a 250GB HD would cost me ?1765,-
while a MB with comparable specs would cost me ?1350,-
?415,- is pretty much money for a student like me, but I think those little positive differences (larger screen, higher resolution, LED-backlight, NVidia graphics, FW800, a standard DVI-port, metal-enclosure) could justify it over time.
What do you guys think?
That's exactly what I mean.
As of now a MBP with 4GB of RAM and a 250GB HD would cost me ?1765,-
while a MB with comparable specs would cost me ?1350,-
?415,- is pretty much money for a student like me, but I think those little positive differences (larger screen, higher resolution, LED-backlight, NVidia graphics, FW800, a standard DVI-port, metal-enclosure) could justify it over time.
What do you guys think?
?415 is not inconsequential, especially for a student, but it does sound like you'll make use of the little things the MBP has that the MB doesn't. I have to say, in your case, I'd recommend the MBP, if you can afford it. Most people I'd say the MB, but it looks like over time you'll have a better experience with the MBP.
Just my 2 cents... which is hardly worth 2 cents anymore.
That is just a feature of glossy displays and the main reason why graphic professionals overwhelmingly prefer matte displays (and cried foul and murder when the iMacs with the glossy screens came out).
[And yes, some graphic professionals are happy with an iMac.]
Ahhh... thanks man. I knew I didn't like the glossy display on an iMac when they had a dvd playing and it was as someone said... "watch yourself watch a movie".
The Macbook air was seriously bad. You had to be perfectly in front of the display, or suddenly all color and whites were muted to a yellowish dull color.
Oh, and I am a graphic designer who deals with a lot of pre-press issue's and of course, color specific content. My 23" Cinema display has been ok, but thats because it's a pretty damn big surface and you don't move your head enough to see a change.
Thanks for the advise on the glossy display.