If that's true, they're starting to sound like Bose. Their philosophy is to sell to the 60%-70% of the public who wants audio gear that's "good enough". That's the "sweet spot" in the market and I think Apple makes products that are better than just "good enough".
Bose is hugely successful. They used to have audophile pretensions, but the sound quality wasn't there. They now make "good enough" sounding stuff in compelling form factors. And sales are through the roof.
Apple is in business to make the highest total profit they possible can, based upon available resources.
They might have special divisions to cater to 30% of the market, but if the recent past (as recently as this AM) is any indication, that is no longer Apple's strategy.
It's been a long time coming, and while the new updates aren't quite as exciting as a brand new design, those of us looking for an upgrade will really welcome the improved specs.
As great as today's MacBooks look, it's interesting to remember that they weren't always so sleek. Here's a photo tour of some of today's MacBook predecessors!
1) The price difference between the Core i7 17" and Core i7 15" is very slim if you're going to pay $100 for a higher rez panel in the 15". There's even more rez and you have a expresscard slot in exchange for a SD slot, $200 (for the i7 upgrade) and a little weight and size.
2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.
Given both have turbo boost and hyperthreading and both are dual-core I'm getting the i5 unless MBP specific benchmarks show a clear advantage for the i7 MBPs.
17" vs 15" I don't know yet.
Thanks for the great information here. Based on this, I'm looking to save $300 by getting the base 15" rather than the top-end 15" (student discount makes the $300 rather than $400). The one question I have is concerning upgrading the memory...
Basically, can I add 4GB of RAM to the 15" MBP later, or would this be a replacement of the base 4GB RAM? Are there empty memory slots? I just don't know that I need 8GB of RAM, but it would be nice to know I can upgrade without throwing away the 4GB that it comes with.
This is the unfortunate truth. We're always settling for less.
With few exceptions, this has been true since the post-war era.
I look for quality. I care less about convenience. But then again, I BBQ for 12 to 16 hours to get good meat, when I could just go to the corner shack and get mediocre BBQ much more conveniently.
Folks who care about quality/performance/excellence are a vanishingly small market.
Theories as to why the 13" didn't at least get an i3?
Aleady explained. To go to i3 means foregoing Nvidia IGP, which means Intel HD IGP. Probably no room in case and surely no room in price for discreet GPU.
It's better than it was yesterday and just be glad they got a special IGP from Nvidia instead of sticking with the 9400M.
I fully admit to not knowing enough about this topic, but I'm not seeing a performance comparison on that page. It seems that there is a wide variety of core i5s and i7s out there with some i5s being pretty well comparable to i7s.
Bose is hugely successful. They used to have audophile pretensions, but the sound quality wasn't there. They now make "good enough" sounding stuff in compelling form factors. And sales are through the roof.
Tell me about. The custom integration firm I worked for became a Bose dealer in 2004 (for only 2 years) and I was sent to one of the kool-aid sessions. "Good enough" was their mantra. But then, that's where all the money is. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to over the years that thought Bose was "high-end" stuff. They're all marketing.
Basically, can I add 4GB of RAM to the 15" MBP later, or would this be a replacement of the base 4GB RAM? Are there empty memory slots? I just don't know that I need 8GB of RAM, but it would be nice to know I can upgrade without throwing away the 4GB that it comes with.
In the past there have only been 2 slots. I'm sure it will be 2x2GB so you will need to purchase 2x4GB in order to upgrade to 8GB of ram.
It's a bummer, but it costs apple way more to do 1x4GB vs 2x2GB.
Thanks for the link. Still, odd that there's no mention on the tech specs page, which would seem to be the first place to look for that.
The only Core i7 chips that are quad core are the Clarksfield chips, but they are 45nm and 45-55W, which is outside the levels Apple wants to use. They probably didn't see the need to specify that any of them were dual core since now their entire pro line is made up of dual core chips.
1) The price difference between the Core i7 17" and Core i7 15" is very slim if you're going to pay $100 for a higher rez panel in the 15". There's even more rez and you have a expresscard slot in exchange for a SD slot, $200 (for the i7 upgrade) and a little weight and size.
2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.
Given both have turbo boost and hyperthreading and both are dual-core I'm getting the i5 unless MBP specific benchmarks show a clear advantage for the i7 MBPs.
17" vs 15" I don't know yet.
Excellent chart. Nice find.
Now that I see how close the i3 is in performance compared to a 2.9 ghz C2D (t9800), I'm certain I'll wait for the 13" MBP to get a nehalem cpu.
For me, it makes little sense to go from a C2D cpu to a slightly faster C2D cpu. I agree with the other poster who expressed similar sentiments.
After waiting months for Apple to finally update their MacBook Pro line to catch up in performance with Dell and HP, they finally release new models. However, while they finally went i5 and i7, they only used the new dual core models. You can't even get a quad core version as a BTO. Considering you've been able to buy a quad core laptop from Dell and HP since 2009, this is a pretty big let down.
I had been waiting for quad core models to assist with all the heavy duty RAW work I do, but looks like Apple intends to keep that as a desktop only option. The dual core i5 and i7 don't represent that much of a leap over the 3.06 GHz dual core processor they replace. Even Apple's own tests, which are notoriously generous, peg the improvement in Aperture 3, a performance hog, at 1.1 times faster. 1.1? That's likely not noticeable in real world use.
Looks like the gap between PC and Mac laptop performance is only going to grow given Apple's decision to keep the laptop line at dual core.
In general Apple does not surf the crest of the performance wave. Their systems never have leading edge components or performance. It is not their design philosophy or marketing strategy to release new products merely to brag about speed gains etc. No doubt a Quad core MBP would be nice, but I bet it would have terrible battery life and be hot and heavy. All three of those conditions are non-starters for Apple.
I fully admit to not knowing enough about this topic, but I'm not seeing a performance comparison on that page. It seems that there is a wide variety of core i5s and i7s out there with some i5s being pretty well comparable to i7s.
You missed the difference in the size of the hard drive.
Very few Apple customers have your needs. The light weight and the battery life are the most important things in a Mobile Device. Everything else is secondary.
If you need raw performance, there are desktop solutions for you for the time being. It is unknown whether Apple will ever make more high-powered machines, now that they are a mobile device company.
I don't really understand you.
Apple have the MacBook and entry models of iMac for these people.
The MacBook Pro and Mac Pro are machines that's supposed to be used by people who work with their computer - pro stands for professional, right?
I'm baffled with the choice of 256 MB VRAM not only the entry model of the 15", but also for the mid. This is the same amount that was available in MacBook Pro's three years ago. The entry level MacBook Pro 15" should have 512 MB and the more expensive ones 1 GB.
Its funny, despite all the complaints about Apples macbook products, they're selling extremely well compared to their pc counterparts. I wonder why that is.
Comments
Two interesting points for buyers:
2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.
This post was extremely useful and changed my decision of what to buy. Stock 17" FTW. Thank you!
If that's true, they're starting to sound like Bose. Their philosophy is to sell to the 60%-70% of the public who wants audio gear that's "good enough". That's the "sweet spot" in the market and I think Apple makes products that are better than just "good enough".
Bose is hugely successful. They used to have audophile pretensions, but the sound quality wasn't there. They now make "good enough" sounding stuff in compelling form factors. And sales are through the roof.
Apple is in business to make the highest total profit they possible can, based upon available resources.
They might have special divisions to cater to 30% of the market, but if the recent past (as recently as this AM) is any indication, that is no longer Apple's strategy.
As great as today's MacBooks look, it's interesting to remember that they weren't always so sleek. Here's a photo tour of some of today's MacBook predecessors!
http://thebusride.com/ride/macbooks-through-the-years
Two interesting points for buyers:
1) The price difference between the Core i7 17" and Core i7 15" is very slim if you're going to pay $100 for a higher rez panel in the 15". There's even more rez and you have a expresscard slot in exchange for a SD slot, $200 (for the i7 upgrade) and a little weight and size.
2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...e.25085.0.html
Given both have turbo boost and hyperthreading and both are dual-core I'm getting the i5 unless MBP specific benchmarks show a clear advantage for the i7 MBPs.
17" vs 15" I don't know yet.
Thanks for the great information here. Based on this, I'm looking to save $300 by getting the base 15" rather than the top-end 15" (student discount makes the $300 rather than $400). The one question I have is concerning upgrading the memory...
Basically, can I add 4GB of RAM to the 15" MBP later, or would this be a replacement of the base 4GB RAM? Are there empty memory slots? I just don't know that I need 8GB of RAM, but it would be nice to know I can upgrade without throwing away the 4GB that it comes with.
This is the unfortunate truth. We're always settling for less.
With few exceptions, this has been true since the post-war era.
I look for quality. I care less about convenience. But then again, I BBQ for 12 to 16 hours to get good meat, when I could just go to the corner shack and get mediocre BBQ much more conveniently.
Folks who care about quality/performance/excellence are a vanishingly small market.
MS Office Home and Student Edition $149.95 (Business Edition $399.95)
iWork only $79.00
OpenOffice.Org $Free
Theories as to why the 13" didn't at least get an i3?
Aleady explained. To go to i3 means foregoing Nvidia IGP, which means Intel HD IGP. Probably no room in case and surely no room in price for discreet GPU.
It's better than it was yesterday and just be glad they got a special IGP from Nvidia instead of sticking with the 9400M.
Absolutely. Read the Apple Store spec sheet.
Hint: It is here http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...CBOOKPRO-INDEX
I fully admit to not knowing enough about this topic, but I'm not seeing a performance comparison on that page. It seems that there is a wide variety of core i5s and i7s out there with some i5s being pretty well comparable to i7s.
Bose is hugely successful. They used to have audophile pretensions, but the sound quality wasn't there. They now make "good enough" sounding stuff in compelling form factors. And sales are through the roof.
Tell me about. The custom integration firm I worked for became a Bose dealer in 2004 (for only 2 years) and I was sent to one of the kool-aid sessions. "Good enough" was their mantra. But then, that's where all the money is. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to over the years that thought Bose was "high-end" stuff. They're all marketing.
Basically, can I add 4GB of RAM to the 15" MBP later, or would this be a replacement of the base 4GB RAM? Are there empty memory slots? I just don't know that I need 8GB of RAM, but it would be nice to know I can upgrade without throwing away the 4GB that it comes with.
In the past there have only been 2 slots. I'm sure it will be 2x2GB so you will need to purchase 2x4GB in order to upgrade to 8GB of ram.
It's a bummer, but it costs apple way more to do 1x4GB vs 2x2GB.
Thanks for the link. Still, odd that there's no mention on the tech specs page, which would seem to be the first place to look for that.
The only Core i7 chips that are quad core are the Clarksfield chips, but they are 45nm and 45-55W, which is outside the levels Apple wants to use. They probably didn't see the need to specify that any of them were dual core since now their entire pro line is made up of dual core chips.
Is it a typo that the FW 800 port is "not" 400 compatible like on the 13" and 17"? They left it out of the spec for that port.
Where does it say it's *not* compatible? FW800 spec is designed to be backwards compatible with FW400.
Two interesting points for buyers:
1) The price difference between the Core i7 17" and Core i7 15" is very slim if you're going to pay $100 for a higher rez panel in the 15". There's even more rez and you have a expresscard slot in exchange for a SD slot, $200 (for the i7 upgrade) and a little weight and size.
2) The performance delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is in the low single digits. The power delta between the i5-540M and the i7-620M is huge.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-...e.25085.0.html
Given both have turbo boost and hyperthreading and both are dual-core I'm getting the i5 unless MBP specific benchmarks show a clear advantage for the i7 MBPs.
17" vs 15" I don't know yet.
Excellent chart. Nice find.
Now that I see how close the i3 is in performance compared to a 2.9 ghz C2D (t9800), I'm certain I'll wait for the 13" MBP to get a nehalem cpu.
For me, it makes little sense to go from a C2D cpu to a slightly faster C2D cpu. I agree with the other poster who expressed similar sentiments.
After waiting months for Apple to finally update their MacBook Pro line to catch up in performance with Dell and HP, they finally release new models. However, while they finally went i5 and i7, they only used the new dual core models. You can't even get a quad core version as a BTO. Considering you've been able to buy a quad core laptop from Dell and HP since 2009, this is a pretty big let down.
I had been waiting for quad core models to assist with all the heavy duty RAW work I do, but looks like Apple intends to keep that as a desktop only option. The dual core i5 and i7 don't represent that much of a leap over the 3.06 GHz dual core processor they replace. Even Apple's own tests, which are notoriously generous, peg the improvement in Aperture 3, a performance hog, at 1.1 times faster. 1.1? That's likely not noticeable in real world use.
Looks like the gap between PC and Mac laptop performance is only going to grow given Apple's decision to keep the laptop line at dual core.
In general Apple does not surf the crest of the performance wave. Their systems never have leading edge components or performance. It is not their design philosophy or marketing strategy to release new products merely to brag about speed gains etc. No doubt a Quad core MBP would be nice, but I bet it would have terrible battery life and be hot and heavy. All three of those conditions are non-starters for Apple.
I fully admit to not knowing enough about this topic, but I'm not seeing a performance comparison on that page. It seems that there is a wide variety of core i5s and i7s out there with some i5s being pretty well comparable to i7s.
You missed the difference in the size of the hard drive.
Very few Apple customers have your needs. The light weight and the battery life are the most important things in a Mobile Device. Everything else is secondary.
If you need raw performance, there are desktop solutions for you for the time being. It is unknown whether Apple will ever make more high-powered machines, now that they are a mobile device company.
I don't really understand you.
Apple have the MacBook and entry models of iMac for these people.
The MacBook Pro and Mac Pro are machines that's supposed to be used by people who work with their computer - pro stands for professional, right?
I'm baffled with the choice of 256 MB VRAM not only the entry model of the 15", but also for the mid. This is the same amount that was available in MacBook Pro's three years ago. The entry level MacBook Pro 15" should have 512 MB and the more expensive ones 1 GB.