Mac Book pro updated

Does anyone know if this is significant update or just more salt in the wounds ?

Apple updates MacBook Pro laptop line ? reghardware

I was expecting at least something closer to cpu 2760qm - 2960xm range instead of 100mhz/200mhz.
The 6750m that is standard is still standard and same for 6770m so what did they really update then ?
Going from 6750m to 6770m on the top range 15" is more like a slap in the face than a update.

 

this is just a minor update not a refresh. The major refresh will be april next yearish with the ivy bridge processors and new case design.

 

Are you positive that there will be a new case design?

 

99% sure it will be a liquid metal design.

 

And by 99% he means he has 0 credible source of which to back him.

 

exactly. I am basing this off the rumors I have been hearing. Rumors that are almost always true.

 

Dont see that happening.... but would be awesome...

 

I don't either, but they got rid of the dvd drive in the mac mini and i didnt see that coming either!

 

Where are these rumors?

I've seen them even in the refresh before this about liquid metal stuff.

But it never came.

So where are these rumors? I want to take a look at them..

 

I think they would test out the liquid metal with the ipods or remotes first since they would need such small amounts of the metal. It would take a ton of the stuff to make a case...

 

I cant remember where i found the rumor on the liquid metal case. If i find it i will post. Here is a rumor on a new case though.
Next MacBook Pro to Get New Case Design - Mac Rumors

 

I like the current case design.. I dont want them to make it smaller with the die shrink. I just want it to be the same size with the same cooling system, and make it run cooler...

I think the redesign means they are going to 16:9s.. and that means the current refresh is where it is at because that is going to be bad...

 

I would be worried they get rid of the optical drive.

 

Wait... it might be ok to go to 16x9 display size, because the current rez is still only 900px high... That means they could soften the blow by going from 1440x900 to a 1600x900 16x9, and lose nothing vertical, while getting the cheaper panels and more horizontal pixels.

That means the default screen would have more pixels, and the upgraded screen would probably go full hd 1080p, and they would save money on components since everyone else has already switched over to 16x9.

 

I don't think they will yet.... Nice selling point for the air, and its to early to merge the lines because of the heat issues...

Pro video editing or simulations on the go with an air style machine is a no go...

 

That's true. Seeing how all apple software is not being sold on disc anymore though, I can't see any reason for them to keep it. Knowing apple.

 

The current refresh is actually alright for the higher end MBP's especially since the 15" model now has a minimum of 512MB of graphics RAM. I am sorry but 256MB of RAM was a joke for the entry level 15" MBP. Apple has at least made that right. The 13" MBP's spec bumps were rather small but at least HDD capacities start at 500GB even for the entry level model.

On a similar note, every rumor out there regarding future Apple products should always be taken with a large grain of salt. They could be right or they could be wrong but no one should ever say "I am 99% sure" because Apple is so unpredictable. Remember back in 2005 and 2006 when all of the rumor blogs were 99% sure there would be a large touchscreen iPod with a hard drive? That didn't come out until 2007 and it didn't have a hard drive. Remember all of the rumor mills stating that they were 99% certain that an Apple tablet would come out in 2008, and then 2009, and then 2010? Yeah, that only happened in 2010 but employees at the supply companies (Foxconn) were also letting lose information. Plus they had been spitting out that rumor for 3 years, they were bound to get it right sooner or later.

The whole liquid metal thing has been said before. There is also a rumor that Apple is switching to liquid metal batteries, the use of only SSD in all their MBPs, they are ditching the optical drive and essentially adopting the MBA form factor to everything, and I can keep going on. We won't know with any type of certainty (99% or even 1%) whether or not those rumors are true until Apple officially announces something and that likely won't be until next year approximately 12 months after the introduction of the early 2011 MBPs. Even then Apple could introduce changes earlier or later than that.

 

yeah you're right haha that was probably a stupid thing or me to say.

 

I would say the 16x9 chassis switch in 2012 is 85% likely though... Will make the machines wider and shorter like everything else... And the rumors dont even mention it really...

Its going to happen no matter what because of being HD friendly. Its just really a question of when not if.

 

1920*1080 would be OK on a 15", I guess. I'd still prefer 16:10 1920*1200, but whatever.

I think they should do 1680*1050 at base level on the 15"

 

I do to. That would be great, but if they go 16x9 it would have to be 1600x900.

 

If you login to the apple store with a username and password, like our company does to get their discount, it shows the entry level macbook pro 15" with the 2.2 processor, and the old 6490M GPU... Thats kinda scary.

 

How do you know? You go from an 85% certainty to 100% in the same statement. You never truly know anything about what Apple is going to do until they officially announce it. There is nothing wrong with saying "I think Apple is going to" or "I see Apple doing" but you start to run into issues when you say "There is XX% amount of certainty that Apple will do" because that means that you have actually measured data and run statistical analysis on it to compare with your past predictions and what Apple has done. Yeah, that is taking things way too overboard but there are many people that come to these forums looking for answers (even through simple Google searches) and they can take those % numbers at face value when they really have absolutely no meaning or significance other than to say "I think."

The problem doesn't come from what you think or what your opinion is but rather when you try to quantify it since this isn't quantifiable data unless you can see into the future.

 

I find the refresh significant for the mbp 15, it made the entry level mbp 15 much more enticing than it ever was.

 

Well, when I said "I would say", I think that is pretty close to "I think Apple is going to" which is what you suggested I say. As far as the number I gave, I simply gave you the % that I give the odds in my mind.

And one number was what I think is the chance of it ever happening, and the other was it happening in 2010. That is why the numbers are different.

 

Perhaps it's just me, but isn't $300-$400 price increase a bit too much just for a refresh that barely yields any real-world performance increase? Aside from the GPU speed-based enhancements, I don't think they really changed much of anything. The processor enhancements don't really deliver real-world results, sure they may show up on a benchmark here or there, but adding 100 MHz or 200MHz isn't going to make that much of a difference.

The hard drive upgrade isn't really much of an incentive if you think about it, it's still a 5400RPM drive, how many of you really still use a 5400RPM as your main-drive? But really what rubbed me the wrong way was that none of their models even come standard w/an SSD. Also, in the case of the 17" MacBook Pro, I think everyone would be better of buying the ENVY 17, as opposed to that which would give you way more bang for you buck.

 

Wish they release the 17 incher with 4 memory slots. 8GB RAM sticks are still very expensive and selling the base model for only 4GB is kind of a letdown.

Of course with 4 slots the notebook will be a bit thicker. But maybe with IVY bridge they can get the optimum form factor.

 

what price increase? They are the same price as before.

 

You mean the difference between 13 and 15" models? Yeah I think so too but they are pretty much able to price their product as they please. The upgrade from dual-core i5 to quad-core i7 is not negligible, but only yields noticeable improvements with well threaded applications. For day to day computing tasks users will not feel a difference. Basically the $600 upgrade only buys you a dedicated graphics card and a slightly bigger screen.

IMO they should make 8GB RAM as standard for 15 and 17" models.

 

As a web designer/Programer, i never use all of my 4 gigs. Even with CS5 and 3 browsers, ftp, mail, calendar, and a wordprocessor open.

 

it actually depends on the OS that you use. IF it aint win xp, yes you are using the full amount of ram. Windows vista and 7 dont let it to go to waste, they are always using it for something else.

 

Well, perhaps I should've stated that I'm not too impressed with Apple's pricing on their 15" and definitely their 17" model. I don't know but I think it pretty much defines greed when they are selling their 17" starting at $2499. And the high-end 15", newly released/refreshed one, is starting at $2199, none of those parts indicate anything remotely different than what is offered in a HP DV6T Quad, which fully loaded goes for less than both.

I hate more than anything to get into squabbles over brands but it's clear that Apple is selling mediocre parts as if they were high-end parts. What RAM you know of costs $250 to go from 4gb to 8gb clocked at 1333MHz?

I feel you, that was another thing I was going to touch on, but they should really make standard is a SSD with the 17" and make an effort to not blatantly rob people. For the raise in price, I thought they added things like a dual-gpu or a different GPU all together but it was the same, the only that was different was that it had 750gb hdd (dual drive not even an option) and where's the blu-ray player?

I you not, you could literally get a fully-loaded laptop with a SSD, FHD, BD-RE and 2x-4x as much memory for less than what they are offering w/the 17".

 

I don't see why it is robbery if you're engaging in an an arms-length transaction in a competitive market.

Given there are substitutes in all relevant markets (hardware, operating system, software), they can--and should--charge whatever consumers would be willing and able to pay to maximize their profits. If prices are too high, consumers will respond accordingly and the market equilibrium will reflect that.

Surely you're not suggesting that Apple should lower its prices just out of charity if it means a lower bottom line? Plus, even if Apple did that, it would probably just get accused of of "predatory pricing" instead of "overpricing".

 

Well instead of saying I dont use it all, maybe I should say I never run out in a way that it cases my machine to need to swap to my hard disk for virtual memory.

 

Well, I'll be honest, a great deal of people buy MBP not knowing that they could get a laptop on the same specs from a different vendor (e.g. Dell, HP, Clevo and etc) for much less and then just throw Mac OSX on it. But that's their fault for being such lazy consumers and I have no sympathy for them either, I would charge 3x as much.

But the problem I have with Apple at the moment, is if you are going to sell a laptop, like the MBP 17, at least have the decency for better parts (e.g. Blu-Ray Player, Optional Dual-HDD, Faster Memory like using 1600MHz/1866MHz and expandable up to 16GB on 2 Dimms) for a $2,499 starting price, not the same 15" laptop with a bigger screen and you throw a $300 mark-up just for the screen.

If they are going to charge such exorbitant prices, they might want to include somethings standard and offer the options for a blu-ray player and dual-hdds. For the starting price of $2,499 I expected to see 8GB Memory and a SSD already included. Perhaps, I sound like I'm being cheap but a laptop for $2499 should come with something.

 

I need to run multiple vms running oracle rac at the same time. So 16GB is kind of essential.

The MBP definitely is nicely built - stylewise. And they are charging a premium for that. Maybe with ivy bridge refresh they can make it better specs -wise.

 

Yeah, some people do need more than 4. I just don't know that more than 4 is necessary for the low end models.

 

And it does. All Macs come with an intangible synchrony between software and hardware. OSX and the Mac hardware go hand in hand so that the user experience feels very refined, smooth, and simple. This is something you just can't find on a Dell, HP, etc. because the Windows platform has to cater to many different manufacturers. This is also the reason why I like Apple laptops, because the user experience is much different than PC's.

It's really pointless to compare the PC world and the Mac world in terms of prices, because at the end of the day, people buy what they want, use what they want, and nothing else matters. In fact, Macs have actually dropped in price significantly over the last few years. For my 2008 Macbook Pro, the retail price was $2699 for the high end 15", compared to $2249 for the high end model today.

 

From what I can gather, the AMD 6750 (on the 2.2 model) has been moved to the 2.0 model with a bump in graphics memory to 512 mb (about time as 256 mb, really? ) while 6770m is being put in the higher end 15" and 17" (only option) macbook pros. I don't see much difference in processing power considering the fact that majority of programs today aren't made to run on 4 cores, so you are future proofing yourself (if there is such a thing), while would be "turbo boosting" around 3.0 Ghz on 1 or 2 cores for today's programs from what I understand.

 

I guess that would matter if you are running a 5400 or 7200 rpm drive. If one is running an SSD, memory wouldn't matter in that case now would it?

I have some experience running Parallels with an XP in virtual, so I know how slow OS X can get as I guess more paging is being done as Parallels uses the RAM. I decreased the RAM usage from 4gb to 1.2 gb but still OS X response didn't improve greatly.

 

You also can't bring up the "Hackintosh" route because it isn't nearly as smooth as having OS X up and running on an actual Mac. Sure, OS X can be installed on other systems but there are multiple driver issues and 3rd party drivers aren't very good either. In other words, you can't directly compare buying a Dell or HP and putting OS X on it to buying a Mac with OS X already on it since the two are completely different. One provides a rather bad experience while the other is smooth.

I am also not sure why people complain about Apple's prices in this day and age especially since they have always been more expensive than the competition and this even dates back to before the late 90's. The only exceptions were the Apple IIe and original Macintosh since those were affordable PCs for their time. Even when Steve came back to Apple and introduced the iMac, that was priced higher comparable PCs with similar specs. Apple has always charged more for their systems (with very few exceptions) so I have a hard time understanding why people are still complaining.

Even with the higher prices, I would still say that they are priced rather competitively in some areas. The MBA is an example especially since Ultrabooks start at $1000 and can easily reach the high end price of the 13" MBA ($1600) when similarly equipped. The MBP line is still more expensive than other models with similar specs/design but that has always been the case. So you either want to pay the extra price or you don't. This debate has come up ad nauseum and it is always the same arguments. There is no point is going over it again and the Hackintosh really has no place in the discussion.

 

I guess MBP can be compared to Sony's E or Z line.

 

The vms will reserve RAM as a lot of shared memory will be used per vm. If RAM is less .. there will be heavy paging and it will be very slow. So slow that cluster can evict nodes.

 

March/April release date of the apple macbook REAL refresh.

Liquid metal case, ivy bridge, real graphics card.

 

I have always heard you do not buy the first gen of an apple design or major redesign. That means you can buy now if you need it.

 

Perhaps, but they all run using the same parts though, such as Intel-based processors and chipsets, I'm not sure of Apple's history w/video cards but essentially their current line-up can be seen in the current HP Envy and DV-x based series. If you love Apple, buy Apple go all the way, my only issue with them is as I stated before, if they want to charge so much, they might as well go ahead and put in some decent parts.

When it comes down to the debate, I think it's more of software debate than it would be hardware based. Apple has sleeker design advantage but not so much anymore, I think Samsung Series 9, Dell XPSz and a few others have finally caught up with it. But that aside, I think it's as you said, the software issue. I've used both, I feel that 7/Snow Leopard, run pretty much the same, Lion might be better but I haven't really tried it out. I think OSX used to have the advantage when it's competitor was only XP/Vista.

Hackintosh isn't as hit or miss as you make it out to be, people just need to purchase the right product (to minimize any issues), for instance, currently I would pick a HP DV6T Quad-series model over any Dell-based model and use that because there would be less of an issue when it comes to the most important drivers (e.g. video card) since they use the same video card and processor, finding the drivers aren't a problem. Also, I think there are enough helpful YouTube videos and forum-based communities that help each other out when it comes to stuff like this.

As for the pricing, my main objective and point about them is, you might as well put something in there that's worth it, instead of charging insanely retarded prices for upgrading from 4gb 1333mhz to 8gb 1333mhz. I mean come on, really? But it's not just the memory, Apple's MBP lacks a great deal of stuff, I hope the April refresh will bring some actual performance upgrades and not just an eye-candy machine.

 

People underestimate software and hardware relationships. A $400 Xbox 360 from 2005 can run modern games, and even run a game like Battlefield 3 on "low" or better settings ~ Crysis 2 as well.

No $400 PC 2005 (desktop or otherwise) is capable of doing that. In fact probably no 2005 PC is capable of doing that.

Why? The software is optimized specifically for the 360. Likewise Android phones may be more powerful but iOS games tend to give you better graphics ~ because the hardware is optimized.

The only trouble is the optimization for OSX isn't that much better then W7, it was a lot better then Vista. All hardware manufacturs charge a lot for cheap memory upgrades, they do it because they can make money from it. Honestly I would rather then W7 on a computer that had W7 as its default OS over a custom hackintosh install any day.

 

But wouldn't that be redundant in an SSD except for more wear and tear I guess?

 

Big problems with redesigns/new designs?

 

SSDs are not known for writes. And SSD reads are a lot slower than memory (100 times or more). These are attached to the IO system after all. So even with an SSD, there is no substitute for RAM.