Gah, no 2.0 GHz in the new MacBook Pro.

I realize that 1.83 GHz on a Core Duo is blazingly fast, but I was a bit dissapointed to see that Apple didn't decide to offer the faster 2.0 GHz version, if only as an optional upgrade.

Still, it comes with a ATI X1600 w/ 256 MB and a GB of RAM on one SO-DIMM on the $2,499 model, so I guess I can't complain.

I'll shell out the bucks for that, and buy a copy of Windows XP Home to install on a separate hard drive partition. Result? A dual-core laptop with a high-end graphics card that runs the best OS and the OS with the most compatibility. In my mind, the ultimate notebook.

 

I was dissapointed at Apple's high prices, but they're fresh on the market - maybe they'll lower them.

 

Has it been shown or confirmed yet that this can be reliably done?

 

Im betting that the 2Ghz will appear in the 17" version which Im also guessing will make an appearance in about a month.
Im also gonna go out on a limb and say that I think that there will also be a small possibly 13" macbook, this will likely have an ATI x13/400 gpu, and it is likely that it is this part that has held up its release. The new ibooks will be single core and will likely have either an integrated intel gpu for a super budget model or a low end ati chip.
But then this is all just hot air out my a'"!ç'è.
a

ps I really hope that there is a smaller macbook its the one I want!

 

Screw that! What I'm more curious about, is whether the new os/x will be stable enough to run on a laptop comparably specced to the macbook... and whether it uses any sort of DRM to make sure that it can only be ran on Apple machines... cuz face it, $2500 for a laptop with those speccs? man, that is EXPENSIVE! If I grab a better specced toshiba for $300 less, and have os/x installed on it, now THAT would be something else...

Now that Apple has joined the Intel world, more than ever they have to find ways to justify their pricing premium. Their hardware is no longer "exotic", and is essentially the same as everyone elses. In the end, what will ultimately save Apple would be their elegant softwares...

cheers,

yass

 

Yup - that's all Apple really has on the PC world - the OS (which BTW can only run a limited amount of software). I have a few words for Apple: LOWER YOUR PRICES!!!

 

2.0 / 1.83 gives you 1.09. Wow, a whopping 9% increase in speed. And keep in mind it's not the entire computer that's 9% faster since the GPU, RAM, HDD, FSB, etc are still the same - the only difference is the CPU.

I'm pretty sure that if you were to have two identical machines side by side, one with a 2.0GHz processor, the other with a 1.83GHz, there's no way you'd be able to tell the difference without the aid of a benchmark test.

Just be glad they didn't put in the 2.0. The fastest chips tend to be way more expensive for not much more performance.

 

Well, it's still annoying that you're paying a premium (even by Apple standards) and not getting premium hardware.

 

I don't get this? They kept the prices inline with the previous models, basically. Spec out any dual core notebook from another provider and you'll be in the same ballpark. I built a Gateway with similar specs for $1600 and it only included a 128MB x1400, not a x1600. It also didn't include bluetooth, the optical in/out, built in camera, remote, backlit keyboard, magsafe power connector, dual DVI output, and a few other things that the Mac did have(for $1999 at the base model). All the standard performance specs were the same.

So the Gateway which is lower quality(I own a gateway and love it...but historically, Mac laptops have been some of hte highest build quality units out there), is only $400 cheaper, not even considering a slew of special features that few other manufacturers offer(like the DVI output...hardly any offer that...and how many offer dual DVI out?).

To me, it seems like the price is very reasonable. Again...also, Macs include a variety of software titles that are very useable in their installed form. Not quite as stripped down as many Windows programs that are provided on most PC's.

 

Sorry to break the news, but it doesn't look like we'll be dual-booting OSX and XP on ANY machine. Read the story over at BetaNews...

http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_Wont_Run_on_Intel_MacBook_iMac/1137003330

For those of you who don't want to go read, basically it comes down to Apple going to Intel's new EFI hardware interface rather than the aging BIOS standard in Windows PCs. Microsoft's starting to move to EFI though, so we might be able to dual-boot OSX and Vista on an Apple soon (scratch that) in the near future (they're still behind schedule? scratch that too)...eventually!

 

Well, that's my opinion - you're paying $2500 and you're not even getting the fastest CPU? That's riddiculous! IBM notebooks and Asus notebooks are of equal build quality and have the same hardware (select models will). Asus' notebooks are on average, at least $400 cheaper for the same hardware. Look back to the past models - compare the 17" G4 to a Toshiba Qosmio or Asus W2V - the two Windows notebooks are about $200-400 cheaper and they feature better hardware.

 

Kinda off the topic, but we can install windows on it? I love macs, I just have to have windows(unfortunately). I like Mac OSX better, looks cooler, but i have to have software that runs only on Windows.

EDIT:: Sorry I was typin while you posted "No we cant" srry.

 

We don't know yet (most likely the answer will be yes). However, there still is the problem of a dual-boot host software which will allow you to choose which OS to boot into.

 

Just wanna clarify something... the output option on the Mac is not DUAL DVI, but DUAL-LINK DVI.

i.e. the MacBook doesn't have TWO DVI outputs, but rather, ONE DVI output that's dual-link. What is dual-link DVI? DVI interface is only fast enough to handle resolutions up to a certain point, in order to go higher, basically you need more bandwidth -- and dual-link DVI provides that. Why is this important? It isn't -- unless you want to connect one of those monster 30" displays to your laptop.

cheers,

yass

 

Thanks...someone clarified that to me like 2 years ago and I promptly forgot it again.

I still think that the features the Mac offers makes the price reasonable. It just seems more expensive because there's no PC notebook out there with all the same features on one unit. At least, I have never seen one.

 

VMWare better make me happy soon...I can't really justify buying a new Mac laptop, but I can go for one that can run Windows too. I need a new Windows machine. I'd settle for dual-boot, I'd prefer to have VMWare.

 

This is Apple's "marketing" strategy: to be one step behind the progress to
make the next "upgrade" easier and sounding great. It was not so obvious before when they were using exotic G4 chips. Now it is quite obvious, because everybody knows that Yonahs with higher speed than 1.83 GHz do exist, and there is no problem to put them instead of 1.83 GHz ones in the laptop.

I wonder if the use of Rozetta technology won't doom Macs to be a few percents slower than their genuine Intel based laptops competitors.

 

I'm sorry...but I doubt that's their marketing strategy. The cost of a 2.0ghz chip over the 1.83Ghz chip is a huge jump. Really big. They probably found that the 1.83Ghz was enough to provide a substantial improvement in speed and saw no reason to offer a unit at an even higher price.

People are already complaining about the price of these machines...how loud would some be screaming if you add a $350 premium for a 2.0ghz machine? Apple has never had a history of offering that many different processor speeds at once anyways. They usually keep it to 2-3 speeds across the notebook line in the past.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they release a 17" unit later on that maybe supports a 2.0Ghz processor. No idea how soon that'd show up though. Maybe next quarter?

 

Actually, this argument sounds reasonable. I admit that I am slightly biased because I felt cheated by previous Apple advertisements.

 

I have to disagree with you and agree with ivar. Apple want's to sound "great" when they put a 2.0GHz Yonah into their $2500 15" PB Pro, like they've jumped ahead of the competition. However, I do feel cheated by Apple's marketing strategy as well. Apple released better hardware later that they could be releasing now for the same price! It really bugs me too that they're charging $2500 for a 1.83GHz PB Pro?? There are plenty of Windows notebooks in that will be in that price range with a much better GPU and CPU as well.

 

I think you're forgetting that this macbook is only 1" thick. The comparable asus v6j which by the way has much weaker graphics and is also thicker is currently priced around $3000 in the european and asian markets.

 

I'm not comparing size - I'm comparing power. The MB Pro is super thin, but I think most people could live with a notebook that's up to 1.5 inches too. My point is that Apple should concentrate on their Price/Performance ratio rather than how thick their notebooks are. The Acer TM 8200, for example has better hardware than the new MB Pros, but will be probably offered for less. I'm not trying to bash Apple - I'm trying to point out that price is where they fall short of the PC world.

 

I believe you're right that they do lack performance/price but that isn't really apple's emphasis is it?

The ipod is simply a really well designed, stylish piece of engineering, and who would believe that $300 is a just price.

Apple seems to emphasize style and aesthetics just as much as performance, so unfortunately for us, we won't get a superpowered laptop in a bulkier case. Just a notebook that rocks and looks fantastic for a premium

 

I agree with you on that - Apple does know how to make a foxy and powerful notebook, but not for cheap

 

Yeah I don't think they are really falling short per se...the style and cool factor is all there so people will pay more and feel good about it.

 

All Apples have that "timeless" look to them - you wouldn't really be able to tell the difference between a PB G4 and a MB Pro unless you measured their width and took weight measurements.

 

Apple's not catering to Windows though. They cater to OSX. If the 1.83Ghz gives the performance necessary for OSX now...that's all they care about.

You are so intent on a 2.0Ghz chip...but that's just a number. It's indicative of performance, but it doesn't equal performance. There's many facets of a computer that determine how fast it is. Again...like I've said before...the Macbook Pro's have a slew of features not available on other laptops at all. Those features cost money...but they're features that many Mac users want, so they make sense. To keep the price inline, Apple had to make decisions on where to exercise restraint. I'm sure if the 2.0Ghz offered that big of a performance jump, they'd sell it, provided it could be offered for a good price. If they found it either wasn't that huge(why not take the opportunity to claim even higher performance jumps at Macworld? It's a big press day for htem), or if they found it'd cost too much more, then it seems very logical to me.

Listen, I'm not an unreasonable Apple fan or something...I use PC's...but I respect them for what they offer...and to deny the value that Apple's offering in these new units is insane. Wait until you see how cheap the ibook replacements will be...I'm betting they're gonna really scare some pc manufacturers with those, combined with Vista compatibility.

 

I'm wasn't trying bash Apple (I myself have a beautiful iMac). True, Apples do have a bunch of new features, however, these features have already been introduced to the PC world for less. All I was trying to point out is why does Apple have to make everything so expensive? Do they really need all of those features? I don't know about you, but some of the featues seems somewhat unnecessary.

 

Apple has never been associated with cheap and just because it now has components we can compare price-wise, why should it be cheap now?

It is still an Apple. You pay more for Apple. You get the shabby design and build quality. Excellent heat- and noise-output. Great battery time.

Right now I am stuck between the new Asus models coming and the MacBook Pro (if I can get an 32-bit version of Windows supporting it).

 

The new Asus books are selling right now for quite a big premium in Europe

 

I never meant that the MB Pros should $1000 cheap - I mean that they should me more reasonably priced. They do have features that not many other notebooks have, but some are quite useless IMO (who needs the IR sensor for Front Row? Unless you're doing presentations left and right, there really is no need for it).

 

Why not buy an ASUS with better specs for a better price. They are the OEM for apple notebooks anyway.

 

when i look a t this apple forums i notice that a lot of people looking at these new macbooks with windiwsxp/vista in mind. just does not make sense to me as there are a lot more alternatives for ms widows.

i think people will still buy this note book regardless of price because the whole applehw+osx+ipod is a sort of lifestyle to some.

 

Well, there aren't that many other OSes to choose from:

The Major Three are:
1.Microsoft's Windows
2.Apple's OS X
3.Linux

If you don't have one of these OSes, it's more than likely that you will have no compatability with software available out there on the market, making for a useless computer. Anyways, I believe tha MB Pro will sell to those high-end business users who need Windows and OS X, rather than to the general public.

 

i understand having the need for windows for business/school etc. . . but is there any mac-fan there wanting to buy this here? i want to hear from those people who will use this for osx. what do you think? it seems every macbook pro discussion is about how the possibility of placing windows on it... i'm pretty sure billgates is having a good time now ..lol ..j/k

but anyway powerbooks has been selling regardless if its windows compatible or not. i think this will attract mac-fans too

 

Well, I do own an Apple myself, and I must say I'm amazed by Apple's OS - I'd say it's the nearest thing to perfection out there on the market today. Putting myself into the shoes of an Apple-fan, I'd say that the biggest thing for the new MB Pro is that it's got dual-core CPUs, has an IR port for FrontRow, and has an iSight camera. About MS: Yes, MS is actually encouraging MB Pro owners to put Windows on their notebooks. As MS says - the more Windows owners out there, the better.

 

I as well will be using this for OSX (decision is made, now only a matter of weeks.....). As a lifetime PC user and a one-time anti-mac'er, I just got tired of dealing with Windows. I was already interested in this computer, but after using a friend's powerbook for a bit and playing around with OSX, I love the operating system. If at some point in the future I can dual boot, so be it, but that will definitely be a non-issue to my buying a macbook.

 

Here's the difference. The Asus weighs nearly a lb more then the MacBook Pro. Also, the 17" Powerbook is the BY FAR the lightest and smallest 17" notebook on the market. It weighs almost exactly the same as the Asus does with it's 15" screen.

That said, I am seriously miffed that Apple didn't offer the 2.0 as an option as well. I am even more miffed that Apple STILL isn't putting two trackpad buttons on the system, meaning that even if Windows boots, I will need to use an external mouse.

 

What Asus are you talking about? The V6va weighs less than the new MB Pro (5.49 to 5.6) as you've stated. The Z70va weighs only 0.4 pounds heavier, and is slightly cheaper than the MB Pro (basemodel). When they're refreshed, they'll probably have better hardware than the MB for less too. I'm not trying to bash Apple - their notebooks are great and have a bunch of features that Windows notebooks don't (back-lit keyboard/nifty new power cord connector), but they simply aren't as cost effiecient, that's all.

 

My fault, I confused the Asus with the Acer. Sorry about that.

 

No problem - I like a good discussion