Just ordered a MBPro, the $2,000 one. Will this thing be able to run Call of Duty 4 any good? Not going to game much on it but it would be nice to try this one out...
i know how the older plastic covered glossy screens look on the last model of macbook pros.
[and they aren't too bad, but the iMacs with glass always look bad when ever i see or try them]
that is why i am asking if others have noticed this, or if it is just the circumstances in which i have seen/tried the other product...i havent had the chance to compare side by side.
the apple store near me is always a real circus, not even worth trying to go in there
Just ordered a MBPro, the $2,000 one. Will this thing be able to run Call of Duty 4 any good? Not going to game much on it but it would be nice to try this one out...
Not on high settings, but it should run decently with the correct settings (probably the middle ones).
For me at least, fps should be averaged around 30 to be playable.
I'm disappointed today. I understand how the new environmentally friendly unit has to cost more, but it's disappointing in a world where other brands of laptops have significantly cut prices to see Apple raising prices. Outside the US some of the increases are substantial. A token $100 drop in the old plastic MacBook is really insignificant and in most places outside the US translates to no drop at all.
Ditching FireWire from the MB seems to be a clear case of being penny wise and pound foolish. It's a symptom of Apple making machines that are just "good enough", a philosophy usually attributed to PC clones and a certain software company in Redmond, WA.
Not only have we lost use of our FireWire drives and camcorders, losing FireWire eliminates a truly useful and friendly part of the Mac experience: target disk mode. I still find it surprising Apple chose to remove it from the MBA and now the MB.
I'm certainly happy to see some decent integrated graphics in the machines. The 9400 isn't particularly powerful, but it's better than Intel graphics and it's reasonably energy efficient. I'm not surprised that the Pro option is merely a 9600. Apple has a long history of putting one generation old, mid-range graphics into their pro systems.
While Display Port may be a forward looking interface I don't like the proliferation or little adapters for everything. It's also a subtle way of raising prices for everyone. If you use DVI it'll cost $30, if you also use projectors it's another $30 and if you need dual link DVI it'll set you back $100 and cost you one of your USB ports.
Why Apple ever designed the Mac mini to use a different motherboard than the one in the iBook/MacBook is beyond comprehension. It could be more powerful, less expensive and provide Apple with better margins if they hadn't been so focused on making it small. Today's 24" display announcement gives me a tiny bit of hope that there'll be a new mini before Thanksgiving. I don't expect a new Mac Pro before January and don't expect any headless machine in the $1000-2000 range as long as Steve Jobs lives.
I'm disappointed today. I understand how the new environmentally friendly unit has to cost more, but it's disappointing in a world where other brands of laptops have significantly cut prices to see Apple raising prices.
Other brands are cutting prices by using cheaper/inferior components.
Apple continues to use expensive components and manufacturing processes. As a way to differentiate itself from the others.
I will not get into the matte vs. glossy debate. Honestly, I understand the glossy complaint. I'm sure the covers to fix this will be of minimal cost.
Any aren't more people outraged that the fact that if we purchase a new MBP, we have to pay another $99 for an adapter to use our 30-inch Apple Display.
Apple couldn't include the adapter for its high-end notebook line?
Everyone else is ok with the extra 99 bucks for an adapter that should be included?? 99 bucks???
I had a Macbook and it was just ruining my eyes. The matte was like a tremendous relief, sharper and yet less reflective.
This is how I feel. I am not a photgrapher or printer, so am not too concerned about color reproduction, but with the glossy screen I had to lean forward slightly and squint.
I do not discount others who find glossy to be fine, but for me it changes my eyes from a state of relaxation to a state of effort. So anyway Apple will be happy because I sold my Alu iMac and got a Mac Pro with 3rd party screen. It didn't make me abandon Mac, just change my choice of Mac.
I don't understand why Apple still does not offer Blu-Ray drives in their laptops or Imacs? I have a MBP that is about 3 years old and was hoping to buy the new model which was released today but was disappointed when I found out they were not going to be offered with Blu-Ray drives.
I don't get it. Does anyone know what's behind the thinking of this?
The Microsoft trollls, the DELL trolls and their likes, certaintly are roaming these forums today!!!
It´s a marketing gimmick from the competition... Just ignore it/them!
I´m not saying that all is good, but the only thing that might be a let down for me is the glass screen. BUT!... It´s not a disaster! Come one people!... The new glossy screens might even have much better control over the lighting konditions then the previous ones! Who knows? Apple is aware of the problem.
Apple is innovating all the time. Some products you will like, some you won´t. If they make a product you don´t like, DON´T BUY IT!!!
I really don't Understand why are you so serious about it hehe
If you compare it to $899 23" Cinema Display the new 24" has Great Value cause it has LED wich is brighter and good on consumption, It has an iSight and Speakers that are the same size of an iMac that provide good output thru the bouncing.
So at the end you have a bigger, better, brighter NEW Cinema Display without a firewire port plus the iSight & audio at the same price point current line 23" . For me it fulfills the whole meaning of upgrade.
About Remote and Front Row, does any of the Displays include one, does any Display render the definition of Media Hub aka Apple TV? Answer = NO
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
I too am amazed that they're carving the MacBook and MacBook Pro cases as per the rumors. To me, I can't imagine this process being anything but expensive. The carved out metal cannot be used again unless extracted from the liquid, dried, cleaned, and melted back into a block.
Anyway, the new MacBooks seem great.
But what was Apple smoking when they designed the new display. I had a feeling that an iSight would be built-in if a new display was ever released. But speakers!?
Apple you're overloading the monitor with useless shit and making it artificially more expensive. Who at Apple had the bright idea of putting speakers instead of Front Row + remote support? Holy shit. I hate it when Apple puts out overloaded products that don't answer to any particular needs.
If this display is truly marketed towards MacBook users, why is there an iSight built-in? And if it isn't marketed towards MacBook users why the hell isn't Front Row support built-in?
Apple, if you actually care, you're going to make a display WITHOUT the iSight and speakers and put IR + remote in your stinkin' displays.
edit: alright, now I realize that Apple is marketing this display towards MacBook users since only these computers currently have DisplayPorts. This pretty much means that you're going from the MacBook's built-in iSight to the display's built-in iSight, and from the MacBook's tiny speakers to the display's tiny speakers. IS APPLE FUCKING DUMB!? Only numbskulls would buy a monitor with a price tag that is unnecessarily propped up by a second iSight and a second set of speakers. Fuck you, Apple. After all this wait, you slap everyone in the face with such a useless product.
Apple has completely lost touch with reality. With the economy going down the crapper, they're putting out products like the 24" display which looks like a very product until you see all the shit they tacked on to it like iSight, speakers, Magsafe power. Way to go, Apple...way to go.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about here.
While it's true that most people prefer glossy, (and Apple is probably smart to go that way for that reason alone), glossy displays don't give true colour reproduction.
The pictures "look better" because they appear over-saturated. For the segment of the Pro market that needs true colour reproduction (and this segment basically comprised of graphic designers and pro photographers), glossy is just not going to do it. They are a minority segment, but still, if you want truly accurate colour, you need a non glossy screen.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say that anyone here should not hire webhead for serious graphic work if he actually thinks that glossy displays (with equivalent specs to matte ones) are superior in color reproduction and image quality.
You're right. I seem to recall that all the Quantel boxes I saw back in the day had glossy screens in semi-dark rooms. Most of the video post production work I've been involved with used glossy screens as well.
I opted for a glossy screen on my MacBook Pro, but I guess my 15 years in the business are invalidated by my choice of a glossy screen on my laptop. I wouldn't even think of doing color correction on a laptop anyway. I guess that's why I paid so much money for 2 NEC MultiSync 2690 displays and an i1 display calibrator.
You people screaming at the top of your lungs about glossy screens seem like you just picked up a meme and now get to bitch about it. How can anyone complain about glare from using a screen outside while also complaining about it not be color correct. Who color corrects outdoors with a laptop?
great post. it amazes me that "professional" people are complaining about the suitability of the mpb's screen for color (be it print, web or video) and are using or toting similarly imperfect solutions.
some "professional" people here seemingly have no idea as to what the correct set-up should be, or at least know the limitations of their set-up.
Yeah I'm never gonna be able to get it perfect, but this is as close as I can get to that. The back of the laptop screen is completely flat against the face of the monitor, so they are both at exactly the same angle.
To me the more diffused light reflection of the matte screen is a better solution than the less diffused but perfect reflection of the glossy. It is *much* easier to notice the background distractions in the glossy screen than in the matte.
Why do you even bother trying to explain to these A*Holes on here that matte is better?
I use to perfer apples because they knew exactly what I wanted or offered what I wanted as a configuration option. Examples (back in the day) include Bluetooth, small footprint/low weight, widescreen LCD, and Firewire.
Looking at the apple store, there are almost ZERO configurable options. Furthermore, the list of features keeps shrinking and shrinking.
Has anyone here looked at the VAIOs? For something that weighs LESS and is SMALLER than an MacBook Air, they have managed to pack in a full array of ports into the TT series.
While the TT series does have a smaller LCD (11.1), Sony was able to pack in the following options that allude Apple:
VGA Port
HDMI Port
2x USB 2.0
4 Pin iLink (Firewire)
10/100/1000 Ethernet
SD Card Reader
ExpressCard32
Biometric Fingerprint Sensor
Microphone Jack
Oh did I forget IT HAS AN INTEGRATED BLU-RAY DRIVE?
Oh ya and it also has higher resolution screen.
How is it that Sony is able to fit all of this into a SMALLER package and Apple can't figure it out?
COME ON, THE NEW MODELS DON'T EVEN HAVE BLU-RAY.
If they had Blu-Ray I might feel different, but that is a deal breaker for me. Not only have I only purchased Blu-Ray movies for the past ~2 years, but we use Blu-Ray at work. 3rd parties charge up to 1000 for these drives.
Ever since Apple when "main stream" it seams like they have stopped trying. Their customer service is a joke, and now they are lax on their product line up.
I have been buying Apple products since the Apple IIc
. I was looking forward to replacing my aging MacBook. Now I have some hard choices to make.
While the TT series does have a smaller LCD (11.1), Sony was able to pack in the following options that allude Apple:
VGA Port
HDMI Port
2x USB 2.0
4 Pin iLink (Firewire)
10/100/1000 Ethernet
SD Card Reader
ExpressCard32
Biometric Fingerprint Sensor
Microphone Jack
Oh did I forget IT HAS AN INTEGRATED BLU-RAY DRIVE?
Oh ya and it also has higher resolution screen.
The Blu-Ray model? $4400 and not shipping yet. The base model is $500 more than the base Air, starting at 1.2GHz CPU. The number of screen dots are actually pretty close, Air 1.024,000 pixels vs 1,049,088 pixels, a 2.5% difference.
Has anyone here looked at the VAIOs? For something that weighs LESS and is SMALLER than an MacBook Air, they have managed to pack in a full array of ports into the TT series.
While the TT series does have a smaller LCD (11.1), Sony was able to pack in the following options that allude Apple:
VGA Port
HDMI Port
2x USB 2.0
4 Pin iLink (Firewire)
10/100/1000 Ethernet
SD Card Reader
ExpressCard32
Biometric Fingerprint Sensor
Microphone Jack
Oh did I forget IT HAS AN INTEGRATED BLU-RAY DRIVE?
Oh ya and it also has higher resolution screen.
How is it that Sony is able to fit all of this into a SMALLER package and Apple can't figure it out?
COME ON, THE NEW MODELS DON'T EVEN HAVE BLU-RAY.
The TT has all of those ports because its thicker than all of the MacBook offerings. Also uses a slower processor, slower FSB, slower graphics card. Which requires less room for heat dissipation.
The Blu-ray drive is tray loading. Apple only uses slot loading. BD drives require more DRM, are slower, and cost more.
Comments
i know how the older plastic covered glossy screens look on the last model of macbook pros.
[and they aren't too bad, but the iMacs with glass always look bad when ever i see or try them]
that is why i am asking if others have noticed this, or if it is just the circumstances in which i have seen/tried the other product...i havent had the chance to compare side by side.
the apple store near me is always a real circus, not even worth trying to go in there
Just ordered a MBPro, the $2,000 one. Will this thing be able to run Call of Duty 4 any good? Not going to game much on it but it would be nice to try this one out...
Not on high settings, but it should run decently with the correct settings (probably the middle ones).
For me at least, fps should be averaged around 30 to be playable.
Ditching FireWire from the MB seems to be a clear case of being penny wise and pound foolish. It's a symptom of Apple making machines that are just "good enough", a philosophy usually attributed to PC clones and a certain software company in Redmond, WA.
Not only have we lost use of our FireWire drives and camcorders, losing FireWire eliminates a truly useful and friendly part of the Mac experience: target disk mode. I still find it surprising Apple chose to remove it from the MBA and now the MB.
I'm certainly happy to see some decent integrated graphics in the machines. The 9400 isn't particularly powerful, but it's better than Intel graphics and it's reasonably energy efficient. I'm not surprised that the Pro option is merely a 9600. Apple has a long history of putting one generation old, mid-range graphics into their pro systems.
While Display Port may be a forward looking interface I don't like the proliferation or little adapters for everything. It's also a subtle way of raising prices for everyone. If you use DVI it'll cost $30, if you also use projectors it's another $30 and if you need dual link DVI it'll set you back $100 and cost you one of your USB ports.
Why Apple ever designed the Mac mini to use a different motherboard than the one in the iBook/MacBook is beyond comprehension. It could be more powerful, less expensive and provide Apple with better margins if they hadn't been so focused on making it small. Today's 24" display announcement gives me a tiny bit of hope that there'll be a new mini before Thanksgiving. I don't expect a new Mac Pro before January and don't expect any headless machine in the $1000-2000 range as long as Steve Jobs lives.
I'm disappointed today. I understand how the new environmentally friendly unit has to cost more, but it's disappointing in a world where other brands of laptops have significantly cut prices to see Apple raising prices.
Other brands are cutting prices by using cheaper/inferior components.
Apple continues to use expensive components and manufacturing processes. As a way to differentiate itself from the others.
Any aren't more people outraged that the fact that if we purchase a new MBP, we have to pay another $99 for an adapter to use our 30-inch Apple Display.
Apple couldn't include the adapter for its high-end notebook line?
Everyone else is ok with the extra 99 bucks for an adapter that should be included?? 99 bucks???
I had a Macbook and it was just ruining my eyes. The matte was like a tremendous relief, sharper and yet less reflective.
This is how I feel. I am not a photgrapher or printer, so am not too concerned about color reproduction, but with the glossy screen I had to lean forward slightly and squint.
I do not discount others who find glossy to be fine, but for me it changes my eyes from a state of relaxation to a state of effort. So anyway Apple will be happy because I sold my Alu iMac and got a Mac Pro with 3rd party screen. It didn't make me abandon Mac, just change my choice of Mac.
I don't get it. Does anyone know what's behind the thinking of this?
It´s a marketing gimmick from the competition... Just ignore it/them!
I´m not saying that all is good, but the only thing that might be a let down for me is the glass screen. BUT!... It´s not a disaster! Come one people!... The new glossy screens might even have much better control over the lighting konditions then the previous ones! Who knows?
Apple is innovating all the time. Some products you will like, some you won´t. If they make a product you don´t like, DON´T BUY IT!!!
I like this one!!!
YOU WHIIIIINERS!!!
I don't get it. Does anyone know what's behind the thinking of this?
Apple would have to add more and unwanted DRM to OS X.
The current slot loading Blu-ray drives that the MacBook would use are too big, too slow, consume too much energy, and too expensive.
Few people give a crap about Blu-ray.
If you compare it to $899 23" Cinema Display the new 24" has Great Value cause it has LED wich is brighter and good on consumption, It has an iSight and Speakers that are the same size of an iMac that provide good output thru the bouncing.
So at the end you have a bigger, better, brighter NEW Cinema Display without a firewire port plus the iSight & audio at the same price point current line 23" . For me it fulfills the whole meaning of upgrade.
About Remote and Front Row, does any of the Displays include one, does any Display render the definition of Media Hub aka Apple TV? Answer = NO
I too am amazed that they're carving the MacBook and MacBook Pro cases as per the rumors. To me, I can't imagine this process being anything but expensive. The carved out metal cannot be used again unless extracted from the liquid, dried, cleaned, and melted back into a block.
Anyway, the new MacBooks seem great.
But what was Apple smoking when they designed the new display. I had a feeling that an iSight would be built-in if a new display was ever released. But speakers!?
Apple you're overloading the monitor with useless shit and making it artificially more expensive. Who at Apple had the bright idea of putting speakers instead of Front Row + remote support? Holy shit. I hate it when Apple puts out overloaded products that don't answer to any particular needs.
If this display is truly marketed towards MacBook users, why is there an iSight built-in? And if it isn't marketed towards MacBook users why the hell isn't Front Row support built-in?
Apple, if you actually care, you're going to make a display WITHOUT the iSight and speakers and put IR + remote in your stinkin' displays.
edit: alright, now I realize that Apple is marketing this display towards MacBook users since only these computers currently have DisplayPorts. This pretty much means that you're going from the MacBook's built-in iSight to the display's built-in iSight, and from the MacBook's tiny speakers to the display's tiny speakers. IS APPLE FUCKING DUMB!? Only numbskulls would buy a monitor with a price tag that is unnecessarily propped up by a second iSight and a second set of speakers. Fuck you, Apple. After all this wait, you slap everyone in the face with such a useless product.
Apple has completely lost touch with reality. With the economy going down the crapper, they're putting out products like the 24" display which looks like a very product until you see all the shit they tacked on to it like iSight, speakers, Magsafe power. Way to go, Apple...way to go.
.....W.T.F?
How do i use my $2000 MOTU FW audio interface now?!
NO F.I.R.E.W.I.R.E 4.0.0.
.....W.T.F?
How do i use my $2000 MOTU FW audio interface now?!
You have the choice of any computer other than the MacBook or Air.
Tell me I'm wrong! I dare you.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about here.
While it's true that most people prefer glossy, (and Apple is probably smart to go that way for that reason alone), glossy displays don't give true colour reproduction.
The pictures "look better" because they appear over-saturated. For the segment of the Pro market that needs true colour reproduction (and this segment basically comprised of graphic designers and pro photographers), glossy is just not going to do it. They are a minority segment, but still, if you want truly accurate colour, you need a non glossy screen.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say that anyone here should not hire webhead for serious graphic work if he actually thinks that glossy displays (with equivalent specs to matte ones) are superior in color reproduction and image quality.
You're right. I seem to recall that all the Quantel boxes I saw back in the day had glossy screens in semi-dark rooms. Most of the video post production work I've been involved with used glossy screens as well.
I opted for a glossy screen on my MacBook Pro, but I guess my 15 years in the business are invalidated by my choice of a glossy screen on my laptop. I wouldn't even think of doing color correction on a laptop anyway. I guess that's why I paid so much money for 2 NEC MultiSync 2690 displays and an i1 display calibrator.
You people screaming at the top of your lungs about glossy screens seem like you just picked up a meme and now get to bitch about it. How can anyone complain about glare from using a screen outside while also complaining about it not be color correct. Who color corrects outdoors with a laptop?
great post. it amazes me that "professional" people are complaining about the suitability of the mpb's screen for color (be it print, web or video) and are using or toting similarly imperfect solutions.
some "professional" people here seemingly have no idea as to what the correct set-up should be, or at least know the limitations of their set-up.
Yeah I'm never gonna be able to get it perfect, but this is as close as I can get to that. The back of the laptop screen is completely flat against the face of the monitor, so they are both at exactly the same angle.
To me the more diffused light reflection of the matte screen is a better solution than the less diffused but perfect reflection of the glossy. It is *much* easier to notice the background distractions in the glossy screen than in the matte.
Why do you even bother trying to explain to these A*Holes on here that matte is better?
I use to perfer apples because they knew exactly what I wanted or offered what I wanted as a configuration option. Examples (back in the day) include Bluetooth, small footprint/low weight, widescreen LCD, and Firewire.
Looking at the apple store, there are almost ZERO configurable options. Furthermore, the list of features keeps shrinking and shrinking.
Has anyone here looked at the VAIOs? For something that weighs LESS and is SMALLER than an MacBook Air, they have managed to pack in a full array of ports into the TT series.
While the TT series does have a smaller LCD (11.1), Sony was able to pack in the following options that allude Apple:
VGA Port
HDMI Port
2x USB 2.0
4 Pin iLink (Firewire)
10/100/1000 Ethernet
SD Card Reader
ExpressCard32
Biometric Fingerprint Sensor
Microphone Jack
Oh did I forget IT HAS AN INTEGRATED BLU-RAY DRIVE?
Oh ya and it also has higher resolution screen.
How is it that Sony is able to fit all of this into a SMALLER package and Apple can't figure it out?
COME ON, THE NEW MODELS DON'T EVEN HAVE BLU-RAY.
If they had Blu-Ray I might feel different, but that is a deal breaker for me. Not only have I only purchased Blu-Ray movies for the past ~2 years, but we use Blu-Ray at work. 3rd parties charge up to 1000 for these drives.
Ever since Apple when "main stream" it seams like they have stopped trying. Their customer service is a joke, and now they are lax on their product line up.
I have been buying Apple products since the Apple IIc
. I was looking forward to replacing my aging MacBook. Now I have some hard choices to make.
While the TT series does have a smaller LCD (11.1), Sony was able to pack in the following options that allude Apple:
VGA Port
HDMI Port
2x USB 2.0
4 Pin iLink (Firewire)
10/100/1000 Ethernet
SD Card Reader
ExpressCard32
Biometric Fingerprint Sensor
Microphone Jack
Oh did I forget IT HAS AN INTEGRATED BLU-RAY DRIVE?
Oh ya and it also has higher resolution screen.
The Blu-Ray model? $4400 and not shipping yet. The base model is $500 more than the base Air, starting at 1.2GHz CPU. The number of screen dots are actually pretty close, Air 1.024,000 pixels vs 1,049,088 pixels, a 2.5% difference.
These new offerings are a joke.
Has anyone here looked at the VAIOs? For something that weighs LESS and is SMALLER than an MacBook Air, they have managed to pack in a full array of ports into the TT series.
While the TT series does have a smaller LCD (11.1), Sony was able to pack in the following options that allude Apple:
VGA Port
HDMI Port
2x USB 2.0
4 Pin iLink (Firewire)
10/100/1000 Ethernet
SD Card Reader
ExpressCard32
Biometric Fingerprint Sensor
Microphone Jack
Oh did I forget IT HAS AN INTEGRATED BLU-RAY DRIVE?
Oh ya and it also has higher resolution screen.
How is it that Sony is able to fit all of this into a SMALLER package and Apple can't figure it out?
COME ON, THE NEW MODELS DON'T EVEN HAVE BLU-RAY.
The TT has all of those ports because its thicker than all of the MacBook offerings. Also uses a slower processor, slower FSB, slower graphics card. Which requires less room for heat dissipation.
The Blu-ray drive is tray loading. Apple only uses slot loading. BD drives require more DRM, are slower, and cost more.