Apple Refreshes The MacBook Pro Line Discussion

But that doesn't really make her "most PC's run Windows" statement incorrect.

 

What I mean is running of OS X doesn't account for the high price anymore(no more excuses) since other *NIXES are equally good and FOC at that.
A lot of commercial software have rpm distribution for certain *NIXES as well.

 

Well yes I know *nix based systems have picked up. My old engineering school had "Ubuntu distribution" day at the beginning of each semester where they'd explain and install Ubuntu on laptops for students.

Half of the computers there also ran on Linux(they had Ubuntu, and Fedora notably in some labs).

But see people don't know that >.>

Besides lots of *nix systems require certain technical knowledge(due to a lot of it being Open Source) while OSX is supposedly "stupid simple".

 

I've seen you point out the cooling as a pro twice. I wouldn't have put that as a pro for the MBP.

This is another review btw.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362644,00.asp

 

Quality != Apple, haven't you heard of rotten Apples?

 

If by "stupid simple" you mean "just works" you might be right.

I've run a fair number of Linux systems over the years from Suse, Genntoo, Debian etc. I quite liked tinkering them and getting them working nicely. I was never happy with them running on my Sony Vaio SZ (due to Sony having a boat load of proprietary hardware), but they worked incredibly well on my desktops. That might be better with their newer hardware, I've not looked.

I do a lot of Java development so my dev environment is pretty platform agnostic, so in that respect OSX is simply a unix like system that works well on the hardware provided and doesn't need any baby sitting.

TimeMachine, iPhoto are pretty much the main OSX apps that I'd miss if I switched, but there are alternatives. I really like having a unix shell to work in, and that makes OSX and Linux way nicer than Windows, cygwin's good, but still just not as nicely integrated.

So, yes I'm quite capable of running a Linux desktop, but it doesn't interest me to do it. OSX gives me the unix bits I want along with MS Office and decent desktop apps and vmware/parallels for those times I need Windows.

So, don't make it sound like it's a blind decision, it's actually quite a considered one - and next time I really look at upgrading it might be a different decision, but that'll be next time.

 

I just completed an installation of OpenSUSE in less than 1 day.
Everything works.
WebCam, Card reader, suspend, hibernate and wireless (except weak signal) I even got skype running no issues.
I solved the wireless by downloading and compiling latest source.
The rest is as easy as adding repository and pulling the packages from GUI.
Either you have been looking at the wrong hardware or wrong distro or not looking hard enough.
It is an Acer btw cheapo brand.

 

Actually that really good to know, and no, it's more that I've not looked recently. Honestly I'd expect it to be better now, I'd also do a lot more research before buying a Sony for Linux again - never did get things like the keyboard support for screen brightness working last time. Too proprietary at the time.

 

I run Ubuntu and mint on various Acer, Dell and Panasonic machines. normally there are no issues. ( the Panny touchscreens and Linux can sometimes be a pain )

 

yeah i think sony never was a fan of open standards and things like that.

 

Who said I wanted a "workstation", whatever that may be? I want a well put together laptop with a high resolution, light weight for the size, quiet and I'm not interested in putting up with mediocre touchpads or screens.

What bothers me is why so many laptop makers have so many models and none really focused on a simple quality purchase. All that "workstation" or "business" designation is a cop-out. I do everything on my laptop. It needs to be good and I'm willing to pay for it.

What's wrong with the PC sector these days is how hard someone has to work to meet those simple specs. And that's why Apple continues to succeed - the others are really not competing for this market. They always have some excuse about why you should put up with a butt ugly generic product that lasts 5 minutes and has screen that cant represent black correctly. Theres no excuse for it.

 

I'm actually okay with the refreshed Macbooks. It wouldn't make me rush out to a store and pick one up this instant, but it's a decent update. I can understand why they don't want the i7s, so I'm perfectly fine with that decision. The two things about these new Macbooks that bugs me is the Core 2 Duo processors that are still in the 13 inch models (Seriously, the i3 or a low-voltage i5 would have worked fine), and the odd video memory configuration in the 15 and 17 inch models. Somehow having to spend $2000+ just so you can get the 512MB GDDR3 just doesn't sit right with me.

I was hoping to see the Air get an update alongside the Pro series. Give it a Core i5 520um processor, the Geforce 320m and keep the prices the same, and I would give it a serious thought.

 

Ok someone please tell me what's so great about the Macbooks' touchpads?

I literally have a 13" MBP sitting next to me on my desk and I honestly don't see anything that special other than the fact that's abnormally large and has no buttons.

 

They have the best implementation of multi-touch gestures I've seen thus far. If you don't use the multi-touch features on your touchpad, then it doesn't really do you any good.

 

I always thought multi touch was overrated, to be honest.

 

its nice on a wacom tablet !!!!

 

I hate touchpads period, but it does seem the one for Apple seems to be the best at it.

 

Inferior cooling? That's hilarious. It's louder and heavier, and has worse battery life, but inferior cooling? Cooling and noise are almost always inversely proportional. Noise goes up when there's a cooling system that works. Conversely, many a noiseless system, unless they're designed with ULV components, run quite hot, and the MBP is one of them. The EliteBooks I have used have kept cool under load.

Heavier, it's true. It's a bit over a pound heavier. It also has a far superior build quality.

Inferior touchpad? It's subjective. Personally, I don't like the MBP touchpad. It's hard to use for click and dragging, and I don't need all the real estate (I like high sensitivity instead). I'd rather have the one button touchpad of the older MBPs (so long as they don't have the way oversized button), or the EliteBook's 3 button touchpad (actually, make that Lenovo's touchpad. HP doesn't quite do a good enough job of differentiating between the 3 buttons tactile-wise).

Worse battery life? Yes and no. It's also immensely more powerful, with a far superior screen. 3-4 hours of life on a standard 8 cell. Add on a 12 cell slice and expect 7.5-10 hours of battery life. Not to mention you also have the option of swapping batteries, if need be.

Uglier? Also subjective. The brushed aluminum provides a nice understated texture. Black keyboard deck is a good contrast. But most importantly, it's functional aesthetics. The aluminum cannot be scratched by steel wool. The keyboard and touchpad are coated with an anti scratch and anti wear coating that prevents glossiness after a few months. Not to mention it is more unique than the MBP, being a relatively rare business notebook. It fits into many ocassions. My classmates have commented on how beautiful it looks, but when I'm doing presentations, it doesn't light up like a Christmas tree, and is not distracting to the audience.

Don't get me wrong, the MBP has it's place, and I HAVE recommended them to certain people (not to everyone, as there's a different laptop to suit each person). But you simply have no idea about how capable a machine the 8740w really is.

Oh and call me crazy, but the EliteBook has better support. They come to me to fix whatever problems I have.

 

That just killed the macbook completely... How can it have no USB ports on the right? Even my stupid hp has 2 ports on the right... Anyways , i'm a rightie so macbook ain't for me.. Anyways , i saw the review and i got 1 thing to say.. pathetic.

 

That's purely subjective, because I can easily find laptops that weigh less than a Macbook Pro, surpass it in specs; are easy on the eyes, and are a much more frugal purchase. It may be difficult to locate these products in a particular manufacturers line-up, but that's because they offer a varied product that corresponds to needs and budget. Whereas with Apple, the cheapest top is a Macbook, which cost a $1000, and the specs are bleh.

Edit: Quality, on the other-hand, is difficult to gauge, since, once again, laptops run the gamut in terms of construction. I guess one can be safe in knowing that a Macbook is likely to be high-quality.

 

Cooling and noise do not have to be inversely proportional. A 120mm fan is better than two 60mm fans for noise and volume of air pushed. Also quite a bit of cooling can be achieved through absorption which is why modern laptops now come with so much copper piping.

I know I can't wait for the next breakthrough in cooling. I was never big on the water cooling and it is not practical in its current form for notebooks.

 

About the trackpad:

Even though I frequently have my laptop set up at school on a desk and do use a wireless mouse, I also often find myself using the trackpad for some quick work, or popping it open on the couch, or in bed, or at my friend's, or whatever. (note: popping it open for quick use is much more of an option when your computer pops out of sleep in a couple of seconds, so this might not apply to windows systems) So, since I use it a lot, what's better?

Mostly, besides the size, it's the multi touch functions. I really like two finger taps to right click, two finger scrolling which is now thanksfully inertial, three finger swipes to go forward and back, and four finger swipes to see your desktop or choose between all your open applications. I used to make a lot of accidental button presses on Mac touchpads but eventually I learned to stop them completely. Once you get used to it, in my opinion, PC touchpads just seem woefully poor, and in many ways using a Mac touchpad is actually superior to using a mouse.

As to those earlier who continually claimed that a 15" i7 MBP is a poor performer, you might want to check out the new CNET review, in which the MBP equals an Alienware m15x with an i7-920QM and a 1GB GTX 260M. I find it hard to believe anyone can claim this is a low performing laptop for its class when you see what the benchmarks actually are in the latest reviews. And of course, it sports much more than 3x the battery life of the Alienware.

I'm looking forward to what I expect to be a very snappy performer with upgrades to a 7200 hdd and 8 GB RAM, both in OS X and boot camp. I know Macs aren't for everybody, and they certainly are expensive, but I still don't believe they are really overpriced for everything that you get. About the only PC I'd rather have is a $4k Sony Z, but that's definitely out of my range..

 

Oh they don't always have to be, but in laptops, it's often the case. The whisper silent PC ends up burning hot, while the loud PC is cool to the touch.

My 8730w is loud, and it does get annoying at times. But I kinda learned to tune it out. Not saying that that is a legitimate excuse, but it doesn't bother me much anymore.

 

To be fair, Alienware is somewhat overpriced for what you get too, although the Alienware has a much more powerful gpu then the Mac. What you're really paying for is OSX and pretty nice design.

 

Good god? 12 cell "slice"? "Add on?" Please tell me that somewhere back there some bells are ringing. Who wants to be adding on bulky "slice" to what is supposed to be a top-quality laptop, that already is at 6lbs. This is is a non-starter.

Also to give you some perspective, I was getting 8-9 hours out of my previous Panasonic Y5 when new. Said laptop weighed 3.5 lbs with a 14" screen and DVD drive included.

So sitting here in 2010, why would want with at a laptop that requires an external 12 cell add-on to sustain itself for any length of time? That's is what I mean by the folly of Mhz obsession. Too many PC makers focus on specs at the expense of thinking about what the customer actually needs the most.

To be fair to Apple, I think they are not given enough credit there. A lot of people act as if they are fooling people into buying their laptops. But in fact they get a hell of a lot of repeat buyers at sustained high prices no less, which should be a clue to observers that actually they are successfully creating products with the right mix of attributes, in contrast to the specs-max-out obsession that characterises much of the industry. There's something in there beyond marketing. Its called value.

In a sense the "swapping batteries" argument is basically a form of paving the cowpath. Its holding on to old paradigms too tight.

Nobody intrinsically wants to switch batteries. The issue only comes up when the battery life is insufficient in the first place. What you really want is for the battery to last long enough so that effectively it is invisible within your usage pattern.

 

Where's the review you're talking about? I can't find it.

Also, when upgraded with similar specs, the Sony Z is $500 cheaper than the Core i7 Pro. Also, the Z only comes with solid state HD'.

$2400 to $2900.

EDIT: Never mind, I had to go to the front page of Cnet. It doesn't seem to compare them in game performance.

 

The CNET tests were a poor comparison, IMO. None of the tests they had really pushed the systems hard, and certain tests such as the battery drain tests would obviously favor the Macbook.

If they performed solely synthetic performance benchmark tests, the Alienware would have came out on top in gaming, and the processor tests would have been trivial; it all boils down to the application itself. You are comparing a 2.0 GHz quad core processor to a 2.66 GHz dual core processor of the same architecture. It should be obvious that programs that does not support multi-threading would be faster on the Macbook. Overall, I see the two laptop's processor performance being a draw. One has higher clock rate, while the other has more physical cores.

 

For the review:

Google "cnet macbook pro i7 review" and it's the first hit I see. By "Dan Ackerman", 4/5 posted today.

As for Sony Z, I see an i5-540, 13", 4GB RAM for $2500, the same price I paid (with ed discount) for i7, 15", 8GB and double the HDD space. The $4k+ ones are nice, and these do all come with SSD, but I don't see how you get a Sony Z for $500 cheaper with the same specs..

 

Where is the value in paying a huge Apple tax for an inferior product?

I've already shown how Apple blatantly overcharges for items in their Apple store. What makes you Apple fans think they don't do the same for laptops that they do for video cards? The Apple premium isn't for the build quality. It's not for the design. It's certainly not for the computer's specs.

To me, value is when you pay less and actually get more. Apple doesn't fit that definition.

 

I found the review, for some reason it wasn't in the laptop section. I don't see any comparison for the graphics cards. So, I can't tell.

Anyway, the Sony Z starts out at $1900:

Adding a Core i7, with 8gb ram and a carbon finish bumps that up to $2400.

The Core i7 Macbook starts at $2199, but upgrading to a 128gb solid state drive (which the Z possesses), with 8gb of ram and glossy white display (to match the Z's 1680x1050 resolution) bumps the Macbook up to 2900.

 

That is what i believe too.. what to say to these money cows for apple .. well no point wasting breath.. going to play MW2..

 

Well, not to get too distracted here, but:

With a high capacity battery (which is probably a fair comparison for MBP battery life) and the specs you describe the Sony Z is $2499.

With my ed discount (granted that might not be totally fair but a large percentage of Mac buyers get it) the MBP with 8GB and 128 SSD and hi-res matte is $2674.

So, to me, for less than $200 more I'd rather have the larger screen, far superior trackpad and the ability to run OS-X. I think it's fair to say they are priced similarly; at any rate I don't think you can say the Sony Z has a "$500 price advantage with similar specs, only it comes with an SSD", which is what you originally said. Actually, to me the price advantage is less than $200, WITH the SSD. Without it, there is no price advantage with similar specs whatsoever with an ed discount, and a very small one without it.

And regardless, I (and I think most serious notebook buyers) am not interested in a 128 GB hard drive. To push the Sony Z to a reasonable capacity for a modern hd (or the MBP with an SSD) is to push the price much, much higher.

 

This thread has of course become a warzone. Here is another bomb for the value argument.

How much will your computer be worth in 3 years? I can pretty easily get 40-50% of what I paid for my last MBP back right now. The value of a computer also includes the length of its usefulness and resale value.

Plus you MUST compare specs with specs for these to be valid arguments. Though you may not see the value in a backlit keyboard, or decide to get a notebook with a non-LED backlit screen does not mean these items aren't important. If you just see CPU/GPU/RAM, you are missing half the picture.

 

This is fair. Personally right now I'd rather have an i7-620 based laptop than a 720 or a 920, but I agree with your assessment that overall, for regular use, they are a draw.

And yes, the Alienware will do better for serious gaming, although I think the MBP is going to do fine at just about any current game as well. The arguments which have been made here about the MBP being a terribly bad performer though, particularly for use outside of very GPU intensive games, are untenable. And unfortunately many of the "business" class notebooks provided by other companies that might be viewed as competitors stick with Intel graphics.

If I was shopping for a PC I would want very similar specs to what they put in the MBP:

> Sleek design
> Long battery life
> i7-620 (there really is no laptop CPU I'd rather have right now)
> Solid discrete graphics that I can shut off (and Apple is doing the latter part the best)
> 8GB RAM

.. and despite all the shouting about the "Apple tax" it's not easy to get all that in a PC for a lot less. More USBs and HDMI would certainly be improvements, but overall the upgrade they have made is close enough to the sweet spot for me.

Anyway I'm sure people are tired of my babbling by now so I'll be biting my tongue until it arrives, at which point I'd be happy to report on how it actually works if anyone is interested.

 

OK, sure. My Asus laptop (17" form factor...i.e., desktop replacement, i.e., battery life hardly matters in this size) has a 17" LED screen, backlit keyboard, and good build quality. So in my book, even before I begin comparing raw numbers...I'm already ahead.

I have nothing positive to say about the hypothetical idiot who would pay $800-$900 for a 3 year old MBP with the state of current notebook technology being what it is.

 

Your'e losing me now. First you said the Z was $4000. which is true for a maxed out version; but for a regular price, no where near.

I'm not sure why you would purchase a high capacity battery, since the standard battery gets 7.5 hrs of life, which, according to recent reviews, is about on par with new Core i7 Macbook.

You can also get 7-10% discount if you're a student, so that's a nice little incentive.

And sure the Macbook pro has a bigger screen, by two inches, but the Z has a higher resolution and is two pounds lighter.

Also, IMHO, a SSD is superior to a standard HD.

 

Not hypothetical:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Macbook-P...le_Laptops?hash=item4ceeb14512#ht_2722wt_1167

I love how everyone focuses in on the parts of their computer that shine and gloss over the parts that don't. I don't deny that the 330m in my MBP isn't going to game as well as a 5870m. Then again, your notebook is much larger than mine, admittedly a desktop replacement. I can functionally use mine all day on battery. You cannot. Why? They are different missions.

I doesn't matter to you about your battery in the same way it doesn't matter to me that I can't play Crysis.

 

I said the "$4k+ ones are nice", and they are, because they have an acceptable hard disk capacity. I said I don't want 128GB or even 256GB. All consistent and accurate.

You said you could get it for $500 cheaper with similar specs, plus an SSD. You cannot. You can spec them exactly the same, and you can keep the original battery, but with a 500GB hdd on the MBP, and I dare you to show me a $500 difference, or anywhere near.

Besides that, what's this about resolution? The Sony has a 1600x900 and we've been comparing that to matte MBPs which are 1680x1050. So actually, the MBP has more resolution. (and don't forget dual bootable with OSX and a far superior trackpad)

Yes the Sony is very nice and light. But I agree, you do seem lost.

 

mac's do hold there value this is true, but why is the real question... I'll give you 300$ for your 3 year old macbook pro, and no more. The issue is people perceive that mac's are the "Elite" of the computer market hence they want them and hence they will pay even more than they should, even when they are used.

see what I am trying to get at?

 

While I'm sure they hold their value better than bottom-feeders (which most Apple fanbois will inevitably compare with), I'm not convinced that they hold their value at an exceptional level, certainly as of late. I sell relatively few notebooks / desktops privately, but dealing with people who know what they're buying, I get pretty much the same (comparatively massive) loss for ex-flagships be it Apple or anyone else. Hopups and accessories fetch relatively little for the most part, so when comparing Apples with...well, Apples, it's not quite as valid to compare with, eg. a loaded Dell which starts at $499.

True, when you are reselling to dumber consumers who don't know what they're buying but can't afford a new one, it is possible - due to the uniform look of many Macs - to charge over the odds, and I see quite a lot of that going on. But fanbois should beware against glorifying this factor - as all it's doing is collectively stamping a D sign on your foreheads, and giving each other high fives for it (well - that's more typical a behaviour for many Apple fanbois in effect, but that's another flamewar).

 

Why would there be a $500 difference with a 500gb, standard HD, when I clearly said "similar specs." If you keep the standard HD of the macbook, instead of upgrading to SSD, which adds to the $500 difference, how could they possibly be similar?

Oh, and, unless you pay $100 extra for a 1680x1500 resolution, the 15' Macbook is limited to a 1440x900 resolution. It even states this in the Cnet review you mentioned! It's also posted on the Apple tech page, which states:


"# Supported resolutions: 1440 by 900 (native), 1280 by 800, 1152 by 720, 1024 by 640, and 800 by 500 pixels at 16:10 aspect ratio; 1024 by 768, 800 by 600, and 640 by 480 pixels at 4:3 aspect ratio; 1024 by 768, 800 by 600, and 640 by 480 pixels at 4:3 aspect ratio stretched; 720 by 480 pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio; 720 by 480 pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio stretched

# Optional 15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit widescreen display with 1680 by 1050 pixels (glossy or antiglare)"


And, I'm confused?

 

Like I said, when it comes to Apple, the quote, "A fool and his money are soon parted" is absolutely true.

The 17" MBP is also a desktop replacement form factor.

The difference in battery is not worth almost a thousand dollars, period. That is not "value."

 

The Apple bashing really needs to stop or at least gain some semblence of reality.

Does a notebook only consist of CPU, GPU, HDD, RAM, LBS, DVD and $$$?

No it does not. Customer service has a dollar value to quite a few customers. Acer customers WISHED they had the service Apple has. Build quality is also very important. Talk to an HP Envy 15 owner that has a poorly put together expensive machine. There really is no question that Macs have the best rated customer support, the better operating system and one of the best built notebooks in its class. Why are we so stuck on CPU/GPU/HDD/RAM? If you want to play Crysis on the highest settings and not miss a frame then you will not buy a notebook with integrated GFX. If specs for the dollar are all you care about then you will not buy a Mac.

I am in the US and I need a notebook. I want something under $2000 with unmatched customer services because I had an Acer and that was a nightmare. I also need it to be well built because my Envy was a premium notebook and I paid top dollar and had a bunch of build problems. Oh, and Windows is not for me, is there anything better that comes preloaded on the notebook that I can get? Suggest something.

And I am no Apple fanboy. I actually am one of those spec / dollar people. But I guess I can see past my own nose. Last machine I owned was a Lenovo Y550P which I loved.

 

You guys enjoy your notebooks and the experience that comes with them. I will enjoy mine.

Simple as that.

 

Someone needs to look up the definition of "fact" vs "opinion."

 

Lol, I give up.

You said:
"Also, when upgraded with similar specs, the Sony Z is $500 cheaper than the Core i7 Pro. Also, the Z only comes with solid state HD'."

If "similar specs" must mean SSD, why did you include the second sentence beginning with "Also"? Something about that word "also" makes us think you are adding something you didn't consider in the sentence before. English is hard?

Secondly, all of your and my further direct comparisons of price (which you used to attempt to justify your $500 claim) involved upgrading the monitor to 1680x1050. So, that extra one hundred (and fifty!) dollars was included in this analysis which you must have realized, since you selected it on the website to get the figure you quoted. So yes, since you are now babbling on about how it's an option (which you already stated you accounted for) and posting CNET links to prove it (as if it was in dispute) you do seem rather confused.

And then after you made this price comparison and mentioned that you had upgraded the resolution you claimed that the Sony at these prices we'd been discussing had better resolution. What what?

Bad troll is bad. I'm going home.

 

Wait, JohnSavage...you just joined, you have barely more than a dozen posts, and every single one of them is in this thread. I wouldn't go around accusing people of being trolls if I were you.

 

Not expecting to sell my computer.
I bought it because I NEED it.
Not expecting my computer to be obselete in 3 years either.

 

Customer Service is useless for people who can fix their own machines period.
I rather have my money back then pay them for warranty plus cakes.
Typical:
I had a [insert cheapo brand name here] and it was a nightmare, I paid top dollar for a Premium[insert premium brand here] and had problems, I can't use Windows (and feel calculators work better for me)
Typical template for Apple marketing team feel free to copy it if you need it.
I am seriously suspecting Apple Sale Execs job scope involve going to forums and making sure Apple products look good there.
Just look at the <10 post people appear and start to troll the facts.

 

You can buy a Z for $1,699.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0330321

You can also get accidental damage cover from the likes of Provantage to take your total to under $2,000 still.