Apple's next-gen 17-inch MacBook Pro due in a few months
Apple on Tuesday introduced its next-generation 13-inch MacBooks and 15-inch MacBook Pros but was unable to ramp production of its new 17-inch model, which is now expected to make an appearance by early next year.
In a series of last minute reports received by AppleInsider leading up to Tuesday's events, people now proven to be familiar with the matter had attempted to reset expectations for the 15-inch model's larger cousin by explaining that it would take Apple "several months" to release the systems to manufacturing.
While those people provided little color on the issue, a report published by MacNN earlier this week noted two problems that appear to have plagued the new notebook. Specifically, the site reported that the "initial run of 17-inch models have both optical drive and display issues, which will delay shipments."
Since then, AppleInsider has received corroborating reports that there was some form of delay affecting the new 17-inch models, which would have ideally made their debut this week had matters played out differently. Those people reported sightings of the larger model undergoing tests in Apple's labs, and as would be expected, they resemble a slightly larger version of the new 15-inch MacBook Pro.
As avid readers may recall, this isn't the first time that a 17-inch MacBook Pro missed the first boat out of China. The situation was nearly identical back in 2006 when Apple introduced its first ever MacBook Pro at the Macworld Expo in January.
Like this week's introductions, the 2006 MacBook Pro represented a major architectural design overhaul that delivered the first Intel processors in an Apple notebook. The Mac maker elected to focus its resources on completing the higher volume 15-inch model, which it began shipping with faster processors than initially announced a little over a month later. In late April, about three months after the 15-inch MacBook Pro made its debut, Apple introduced the first 17-inch MacBook Pro.
In the meantime, Apple has refreshed its existing 17-inch MacBook Pro, which now comes standard with a high resolution 1920 x 1200 LED-backlit display and a larger 320GB hard drive or an optional 128GB solid state drive. The model includes a 2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6MB shared L2 cache and retails for $2799.
In a series of last minute reports received by AppleInsider leading up to Tuesday's events, people now proven to be familiar with the matter had attempted to reset expectations for the 15-inch model's larger cousin by explaining that it would take Apple "several months" to release the systems to manufacturing.
While those people provided little color on the issue, a report published by MacNN earlier this week noted two problems that appear to have plagued the new notebook. Specifically, the site reported that the "initial run of 17-inch models have both optical drive and display issues, which will delay shipments."
Since then, AppleInsider has received corroborating reports that there was some form of delay affecting the new 17-inch models, which would have ideally made their debut this week had matters played out differently. Those people reported sightings of the larger model undergoing tests in Apple's labs, and as would be expected, they resemble a slightly larger version of the new 15-inch MacBook Pro.
As avid readers may recall, this isn't the first time that a 17-inch MacBook Pro missed the first boat out of China. The situation was nearly identical back in 2006 when Apple introduced its first ever MacBook Pro at the Macworld Expo in January.
Like this week's introductions, the 2006 MacBook Pro represented a major architectural design overhaul that delivered the first Intel processors in an Apple notebook. The Mac maker elected to focus its resources on completing the higher volume 15-inch model, which it began shipping with faster processors than initially announced a little over a month later. In late April, about three months after the 15-inch MacBook Pro made its debut, Apple introduced the first 17-inch MacBook Pro.
In the meantime, Apple has refreshed its existing 17-inch MacBook Pro, which now comes standard with a high resolution 1920 x 1200 LED-backlit display and a larger 320GB hard drive or an optional 128GB solid state drive. The model includes a 2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6MB shared L2 cache and retails for $2799.
Comments
It's the only choice for people who need an antiglare display.
They upgraded the display to be LED and 1920 x 1200 standard. You also still have the choice of an antiglare display.
It's the only choice for people who need an antiglare display.
I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.
The entry level brick MacBook would be $999, I would guess, with roughly the same specs as the current $1299 model, perhaps less disk space (120?), and minus the superdrive? Or the others get bluray? Anyway, I just don't see the MacBook lines remaining split for very long. It's not cool. It makes sense that they are starting with the more expensive models, to recoup their investment, and while unit prices with the new process are at the beginning of their manufacturing curve. Over time the process will get cheaper.
I think prices were kept high on this intro because of the holiday season and because the decision was probably made a few weeks ago. Jobs isn't one to go by the stock market. They will probably wait for an actual retail impact before they get aggressive on prices. Even then, they are likely to use rebates or combos rather than price drops.
What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.
Optical drive issue? What could be wrong with 17" that is okay with 15" and 13"? Unless Apple wanted to offer BlueRay drives, and they backed off due to some unexpected behaviour???
Display issue makes me perplex too. Either they have problems producing the glass cover of that size, or they wanted to increase the resolution and hit a point where the defect rate is still too high. I don't think the graphics processor is buggy, so I am at a loss figuring out something else.
Strange.
Just in time to sell everything I own!
same here
_______________
I wonder if these "optical drive" and "display" issues can really be real?
Optical drive issue? What could be wrong with 17" that is okay with 15" and 13"? ...
Display issue makes me perplex too...
Strange.
Now that you raise this, it does sound bogus to me. Probably a manufacturing ramp issue. They might be saving a lot of money by staging rather than going whole hog from the get go. Or maybe they have a lot of 17" parts in their inventory.
I was hoping this was the case. I'll keep my notes in my wallet for the moment as I need a bigger screen.
I thought that was it too.
It would be nice if they surprised everyone and came out with an 18" one instead of 17".
Apple didn't have a booth at this year's NAB, but I think that's in part because they didn't have anything new to show off, there's no point in spending millions to show off the previous year's products. But FCS 3, a new 17" pro notebook, maybe Final Cut Server 1.5 is probably enough to make it worth a booth there next year.
Now that you raise this, it does sound bogus to me. Probably a manufacturing ramp issue. They might be saving a lot of money by staging rather than going whole hog from the get go. Or maybe they have a lot of 17" parts in their inventory.
Maybe also their "brick" process is not yet mature for 17". It's difficult to figure out when you see the video, but maybe the final result exceeds their internal tolerancies. Who knows?
Any chance at a 8" brick laptop with the same design concept for MWSF? Looking at the logic board size, skipping the optical drive would give you plenty of space to make it work, but I'd guess you would be down to a single USB port, mag safe, ethernet, and mini display port if they kept everything on one side.
Maybe also their "brick" process is not yet mature for 17". It's difficult to figure out when you see the video, but maybe the final result exceeds their internal tolerancies. Who knows?
It is a bigger part. It might be three different parts, I don't know if the base and the lid are also machined the same way. The same fixtures probably can't be used for the larger one. It may be that they felt they needed to focus their efforts on their two more popular sizes when the slightest hiccup came along.
I noticed on Apple's website that the 17" Macbook Pro has theNVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 512MB and the 15" has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 512MB. What's the difference? I use my laptop for my FCP edit and need any boost in performance I can get so I'm wondering should I forego the 17" screen for the more "robust" GFX performance in the 15"?
The GeForce 9600M is about 40% faster than the GeForce 8600M. Currently, Mac OS X can only use one GPU at a time on the MBP. You either use the integrated 9400M (which is about 50% slower than the 8600M) or the 9600M. You have to log out and in to enact the change. Using the 9600M will cost you an hour of battery life.
Maybe when Snow Leopard comes out, Apple will enable people to use both CPUs in an SLI type mode.
I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.
The whys have been convered ad naseum in other threads so I'll simply add;
There are anyones who use MBPs where lights or sun cause glare problems that can't be resolved by "readjusting" the MBP. Many anyones use MBs for other than graphics editing. As Apple is so fond of pointing out, there are many divergent uses of the MBP, including running Windows. We are not the Borg. Choice is a good thing.
Grrr....That sounds more like "Macworld" than this year.
I need a 17 for the video work I do, the HD native res and the screen real estate. I really can't see paying $3K for the current model, with its somewhat flimsy case, and old GPU, especially since the Pro apps use the GPU so much. And I'm hoping that Apple will wise up and make the 17 faster than the 15 inch, rather than just use the extra space for larger speakers
Oh, and please, keep the anti-glare. Glossy == evil.