Apple Refreshes The MacBook Pro Line Discussion

Wow, now *thats* a good value.

 

Reading comprehension must also be hard, particularly if you missed this statement I made:

"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."

Which pretty much summed up my entire argument, and was presented pretty cleary. I guess you focused too much on a presumed inaccuracy in my original post, whilst ignoring the overall argument. Nice.

Furthermore, I even stated, in the sentence you were kind enough to quote, that the Z only supports a SSD. So how, pray tell, would I be able to match the specs of a standard MBP? Gee......

This paragraph doesn't make an ounce of sense. Didn't you just tell me that standard MBP' supported a 1680x resolution out the box, or did that slip your mind (as did my previous point)? Clearly, in order for the computers to be relatively similar in specs, they have to have similar resolutions. It's really simple to grasp.

This was an amusing discussion, and I'm glad you were nice enough to contribute.

BTW, I posted no links, you brought up the Cnet review. LOL.

 

Which hardware wise is the same spec as the MacbookPro 15", with 128Gb SSD instead of a 320GB disk, a higher resolution screen, though 13" and 16x9 rather than 16x10, an actual HDMI port, Oh and 2 pounds lighter. All that for $100 less. Sweet deal.

 

See... I don't really expect any mac fans to realise the difference between a 320GB 5400RPM HDD and a 128GB SSD, since they don't even mind a 2 years old C2D.

Now, you are simply comparing different form factors, try that with 13" MBP and vaio Z please. Vaio Z have to squeeze all those that Mac could only hope to put in their 15" into a 13" form factor. And now 2 pounds lighter is insignificant here? When a gaming laptop is 2 pounds heavier than a MBP 17 that same 2 pounds suddenly became extremely heavy.

As for your CNET review, all I can say is that it's another example of apple fanboys buying whatever the review says, no matter if the review is simply paid for by the Apple's marketting team.

Let me just tell you why it's a biased benchmark:

1. Multimedia multitasking test - WTH is this? How did they get the score of this and what benchmarking software did they use? Nothing was stated but a generic "Multimedia multitasking test" screams doctored results.

2. Photoshop CS3 test - Why photoshop CS3 and not CS4 when they should know that CS3 is not exactly multithreaded very well. M15x is still winning though, but running it on CS4 and the M15x's 920XM will just blow MBP's 620 away.

3. Itunes encoding test - whoever use the crappy Mac optimized Itunes for encoding anyways? How 'bout using a standard encoding software instead, I'm quite sure it's not multithreaded correctly as well.

4. Battery test - no issues here, you are comparing to a gaming laptop for battery though, how pathetic can this get.

OK, just for your info in case next time you see an Apple sponsored review. These is what they will most often do: Compare a i7 quad core with the MBP's dual core, and try to make the dual core look better because MBP can't have a quad core, in achieving so, they will always use some non-multithreaded applications that favor dual cores, in this case, the 920XM wins out closely even in dual core favored test, but in multithreaded applications it will blow the 620 out of the water, and modern applications (not some years old CS3) actually use multi-threading. There's only one kind of software you can't find multi-threaded applications aplenty for modern software, guess what it is? Yes, it's games, but sadly MBP can't play game for crap.

I'm not going to argue and will agree full heartedly if you just say that MBP is great because of style some might like, prestige and legal OS X, but saying that a macbook is worth it in terms of hardware is another story altogether.

 

lol your right there is a lot of 'low post count' people posting... I'll bet some of them are 'respected' members, but just feel like a fight! (ok I'm kidding...).

I can say personally if the MBP 17 could run windows with the same battery life and just as smooth and stable as a regular PC I would buy one INSTANTLY (especially because these have 16:10 screens).

So what I'm trying to say is that to some people there is value in getting a mac book, OS X is a problem for me for 2 reasons, the accessibility options are terrible (linux has just as good accessible support for visually impaired users, and 2 I don't like the GUI.

these flame ware can be quite fun some days...

 

My intent is not to bash the Mac, or mock its consumers, but to discuss the facts. Apparently, when someone can't discredit your posts, they label you a "troll."

Nothing new for me, I'll continue to be respectful to those who reciprocate.

 

don't worry I wasn't targeting you or anyone specifically

I know, I've been labeled a troll before... and it was on a similar thread to this. but after I bought a macbook then I REALLY got a good understand of the whole picture, I can see how some people won't settle for anything less than a macbook, but personally I sold it because I really didn't like it for reasons I have posted. It is also true there really isn't any 'PC equivalents" they are some that are close, there are some that faster (a lot) and there are some that do better on battery life, but slower. the macbook is a very nice balance of style, speed, portability, and overall quality and for such apple charges for it. actually if you look at the 'refurb' store a macbook pro doesn't look to bad at all especially because AL = awesome!

the day OS X dies will be great IMHO, because then I will buy apple products!

 

Fine, if your inaccurate sentence meant to say that with identical specs including a gimped SSD the MBP is $500 more, I guess you are technically correct. But then your "Also" sentence was pointless at best, and explains how you were easily misunderstood.

Besides, I'm not in the market (and I doubt many others are) for a notebook with 128 GB of hdd space. Like I said, the Z is a pretty sweet rig, but you have to spend a huge amount to get it with 500gb. Of course SSDs are better, but I'd rather have the space if I have to choose.

Regardless, you got the "troll" label because repeatedly when you have replied in our conversation, you have added some inaccurate representation of what came before, such that any reply by me must first correct what you have misrepresented. Tiresome. First you claimed I said the "Z" was $4k, implying I thought that was regular price. No. Then you said the Z had better resolution, even though the comparisons we were making were with the upgraded Mac display. No. Now you claim I said the standard MBP supported a 1680x1050 display, when I most definitely did not.

And then, in the same post you claim I focused on an inaccuracy and ignored your argument, you LOL because I said "links" instead of "quotes" and ignore the point made about our price discussion and resolution. I never said the standard MBP came hi-res. I said we had been comparing prices of matte MBPs, which are hi-res, so to suddenly throw in the resolution of the Sony being a plus does not follow.

In summary, I guess I'd rather have a 15" MBP with a 500GB SSD than the 4k Sony Z anyway, now that I think about it. But sure, the Z's are nice, and they come in a bit less than MBPs specced similarly.

 

Err.. right under the tests there is a link that explains what the tests are. Not really that difficult to find.

But I get it, every review that likes the MBP is bought and paid for, doctored, etc. You guys are too much! I wonder if there is any review you all think is *not* paid for by Apple? Because I've yet to see one that laments the performance of the machine in any way.

It must be a conspiracy, or a global meltdown of intelligence, or some nebulous "prestige" factor that you can safely mock that explains Apple's continuing gains in market share. I'm afraid a lot of you guys seem unable to see the forest through the trees.

 

Right... BTW upgrading to 500GB SSD in MBP cost 2k USD, while it's only 1k for Vaio Z. Just upgrading the SSD in MBP to 500gb instantly makes it a 5000 USD machine.

Now, when you have to compare the spec of a 15" to a 13" to actually be equal, you know something is not write.

Ok, the multimedia is actually a video conversion using quicktime... Right... using quicktime an openGL optimized software running on mac OSX and windows. Now, how 'bout just using the fastest converter available on both OS and do the test instead? It's an obviously biased benchmark.

Fact of the matter is, it's proven and done before that Apple will buy reviews that favor them, and the fact of the matter here, is a review here trying to say that i7 620 is better than or equals to the top of the line i7 920XM, which obviously is full of BS. If the review is just saying stuff like how well the software of OS X is, and how good the build quality is etc I would buy it, but trying to use skewed benchmarks to prove that intel's mid end i7 620 is better or equals to their top end 920XM is simply unacceptable BS.

 

I'm not saying the Z isn't a totally awesome computer. 3 pounds and that hardware in that form factor with that battery life is pretty top notch. But not considering price, I'd rather have the larger Mac screen to work on, the trackpad, and the ability to dual boot with OS-X.

But a 500 GB SSD is out of range for me and just about everyone shopping for a notebook, whether it's on a Mac or a Sony. To me, a 128gb or even 256gb hdd is not a viable option in this day and age for a computer I'm going to be using extensively for years. Your mileage may vary.

 

Nah we are mapping the forest using GPS and satelite infrared camera.

 

HDD needs vary, I guess. I get by just fine with 160GB. I could get by with 128GB. That's probably b/c I'm not dual booting. If I were (and I did when my MBP was my primary machine) then, yes, I'd want a bit more than 128.

I've got about 1.5TB of media files. I have no illusions about storing it all directly on my laptop. I've been using external media drives for a couple years now, so maybe that explains my viewpoint.

 

yea man. options are limited among the caliber of laptop I need.

I need a good screen. I need 17"+. I need as much battery life as I can get.

I'm willing to pay for it.

So why are the HP Envy and Elitebooks my only real options other than the MBP 17"? and where the Envy and Elitebook shine in GPU, the MBP outshines them in battery life by a country mile.

*shrug*

I don't know what to do right now.

 

Switchable Graphics?
I am sure this will up the battery life.
I believe Apple exaggerate the batterylife by some figures as they have an excellent marketing department.

 

I agree it's a tough call if you don't mind the extra weight you can get a second bat for the Elitebook and get substantially more life than the macbook. also my old MBP screen was inferior to my current Elitebook despite the MBP being LED and my Elitebook CCFL.

 

Misunderstood, yet I explained it 50 times, and you clearly understood what I meant, as evidenced by your responses. It wasn't until you couldn't refute them anymore, or I appeared "confusing" , that I suddenly became a "troll."

In the same vein of you assuming that I was comparing a Z to a MBP with a 500gb standard HD-despite me cleary saying in one of my initial post that the Z supports SSD only-I assumed you thought it was $4k only, particularly when I first glanced on at this statement.

"About the only PC I'd rather have is a $4k Sony Z, but that's definitely out of my range.."

Actually, I'm not sure if it was evident, I brought up the higher resolution argument since, by this reading this statement that you made:

"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."

It seemed you were indicating that the Z had no real advantages in cost with additional features, even over a standard Macbook. Sorry, if I confused you there.

Also, with taxes factored in, the Z is $300 cheaper; but we all know that's even more, since Sony has its own Ed discount.

In fact, if you were to add a 256 SSD (which is infinitely superior to a regular HD) to both the Mac and Z (vwith closely related specs), with the student discounts, there is $448 difference.

.

Was I supposed to know you meant quotes, instead of links?

This is explained above.

 

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lap...h-core-i7.aspx?mode=benchmarks#PCMark Vantage

according to laptop mag, they found the estimates to be pretty accurate.

as with most things, it really depends on what you're doing with the machine. I don't plan on watching 2 straight movies on any laptop...but if I can make it through all of one of the Lord of The Rings movies while on that damn plane flight from Ft. Lauderdale to Los Angeles (Jet Blue FTW!), and maybe an old episode of Battlestar Galactica without my battery dying, I'm coming out ahead. and if I choose to work through that entire flight, it looks like the MBP will last...and then some.

to me, that's a beautiful thing.

Now, i certainly agree that I can just carry a couple of batteries with me, but to be honest? I've been purchasing 17" laptops since 2001. I'm looking for #5 right now (#4 is the one crossed out in the sig). I really, REALLY like the idea of getting more than 2 hours out of a charge. Since I move around with it, I like the idea of being able to shed 4-6lbs with the MBP (lighter than most desktop replacements by ~2lbs + no spare battery + no charger) in daily usage. and I like not having to compromise screen size and quality to do it (I know past MBP matte screens were unimpressive but this generation's look great).

as for gaming...tbh, the only game I really care about playing on my portable computer in 2010 is StarCraft II. Unless the 330M can't handle that at decent settings @ native resolution, I feel okay about it.

this is not to say I'm decided. only that for my particular needs and wants...as someone who has carried around extra batteries and heavy cases full of heavy computers and extras for damn near a decade...I'm tired of this sh*t. maybe some of you guys don't really leave home with your machines, but ask someone on a college campus or who walks a lot to work (ie. a NY city dweller) if saving 5lbs off their shoulders wouldn't be a relief.

I'm partial to that. But not partial to the price tag. So we'll see what happens. Again, maybe I fall into a very unique category as a print and digital designer who travels to clients regularly and wants to have enough screen space to work with as I can get if I'm working for a week or two with a remote client. Where lugging crap through airports, onto subways, buses, and walking on streets is a somewhat regular activity. But because of my situation...and my long history with desktop replacements, I need:

• Battery life to last me all of my working day with heavy emphasis on Photoshop, Visual Studio, Dreamweaver, Office apps, Firefox, 3DS Max
• Screen good enough to be satisfied with the color reproduction and confident that print work will be exactly what I see
• As light as possible
• Good enough to do some light gaming (as in, about 5% of my usage for the machine), although the more the merrier
• Avoidance of having to carry around a lot of "helper" equipment (spare batts, chargers

I understand most people are not looking for battery life in a 17" formfactor. So again, maybe I'm unique. I don't even think 17" is that big. My last machine was an 18.4", after all.

Based on the helpful suggestions in this thread, it appears my options for my needs are limited to (1) HP Elitebooks, (2) Apple MBP's, (3) Envy 17's, (4)???

And with all 3, I'm giving up something. Whether it's battery life, GPU prowess, looks, volume, or what have you. I guess I'll have to decide which of the sacrificial lambs represents the least amount of the reason I'm using the machine and go from there.

I do hope HP shows us what that new Envy 17 is going to look like, because if it has switchable graphics and a higher quality screen, I'd be a game-changer.

 

If you're looking at the HP Elitebook, you should probably add the Dell Precision and Lenovo W700/W710 to that list, as they're pretty much direct competitors.

 

maybe not the w700. it's XBAWX huge. the elitebook is actually rather light for a well built 17''.

 

I don't know what review you're looking at, but the laptop mag article I see shows the MBP getting 4 hours and 11 minutes. That's a far cry from 8 hours.

You've got to compare apples to apples, bud. Sure it gets the 8 in OSX, but non of my software will run in OSX so it's irrelevant. Your mileage may vary. If you're going to be running OSX, then a comparison is useless since you have NO choice but to get the MBP anyways.

 

checked out the Dell Precision. very nice performance. homely, industrial (no-nonsense) design. 2-2.5 hours, battery life.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2957

same for the Lenovo W700
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Lenovo-Thinkpad-W700-W700ds-Notebook.15275.0.html

really, if I'm going to look at laptops that only get 2-2.5 hours of battery life, I'm gonna look at Asus G73-type machines and save a ton of money.

but I'm not really looking for more 2-hour (if I'm lucky) machines.

I'm feeling strangled by my lack of options. lol

 

I'm certain the MBP 17' will likely drain a little more battery life than its 15' brethren, though I'm not certain. It's going to be hard to find a 17' laptop, which isn't geared towards entertainment, and a long-lasting battery for work environments.


There's also the Acer 8940 which gets over 3 hours of battery-life.

 

Guess I'm looking at a different set of reviews.

Laptop Mag

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lap...h-core-i7.aspx?mode=benchmarks#PCMark Vantage

Anandtech

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3659/apples-15inch-core-i5-macbook-pro-the-one-to-get/7

I've also read personal accounts of people who actually own the computers and they're getting 6-8.

based on your posting history in the thread, I'm sure you'll desperately read over the charts and links to find a reason to discredit them without doing the same for the laptop mag article. save yourself the trouble. there is some debate as to how long it lasts. Endgadget struggled to get too far beyond 5 hours, though that was good enough to be double the Envy and a solid hour longer than the SSD-equipped Vaio Z. I wonder how much the MBP's battery life is boosted by SSD? Hmmmmmm....

in the end, it will depend on your uses for the machine, your screen brightness, and how Apple updates their drivers over time. as with any other computer. No matter what computer I get, I won't know what battery life will look like for me until it's in my hands and I have my regular applications open and working. But to be sure, 5-8 hours is going to be 3x-5x longer than the Dell Precisions or Lenovo W700's could hope to get without a couple of extra batteries in tow.

So unless there are other competitors (Envy 17, where art thou?), we're still stuck with few options. I don't see any measure where the MBP won't last longer than any computer in its class. no? But I don't think that was ever the question. I know no computer is going to beat it in battery life. I just wanted to know if anyone *comes close*.

I've yet to see a recommendation that does, while retaining i7 power and a quality screen. If one exists, I'd love to buy it. It's a big reason why I'm waiting to hear what the Envy 17 will offer. Optimus-like functionality and a good matte screen would make it a MBP killer.

 

People in the M6500 Discussion thread ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=439109) seem to be getting longer times, but this may be due to using components that aren't as top of the line as the Anandtech version (such as ATI graphics, i7-720QM). The most recent post I can find quickly on the subject is by Vogelbung, #3354 which mentions up to 5.5 hours for non-GPU intensive use. I wouldn't really expect it go get much less battery time than the 8740w given similar specs. I do agree that you'll probably get less battery time overall than with the Macbook Pro, but the Elitebook/Precision/Lenovo are really designed more as (almost) full workstations, for CAD and other heavy duty modeling and simulation work, as well as video and photo editing. In that respect, they have to serve a somewhat larger and different market than the Macbook Pro.

 

No, he meant if you're trying to use this computer as workhorse, which probably requires installing Windows, you'll get around 4 hours of battery life, or less. But if you're just using it to browse the internet or utilizing Mac specific programming, then you'll get around 5-8 hrs. Also, as stated above, take heed that those test results are for a 15' MBP.

 

I'd be interested John, even a hands on youtube review would be be greatly appreciated if possible..

I'm still trying to decide between the Elitebook (EB) I mentioned here {or something comparable} or my first MacBook Pro (MPB).

The biggest advantage of the MPB over this EB for me is 16:10 screen, large mt-trackpad, battery life but the EB warranty-specs are better with way more expansion ports. Only 2 crammed USB 2.0 ports on the MPB is disappointing & I will definitely need to find a way to get over the revulsion that Apple's marketing machine gives me. (Apple's style is even too uniform for my tastes so I will likely have to individualize it more).

But I also see no point in being combative (however briefly amusing it may be at times) & appreciate your obviously invested contributions to this thread..

 

i see. no, I don't expect to need to use Windows very often. all of the applications I mentioned will run in MacOS. I could VMWare for Visual Studio.

but no, I wouldn't buy a Mac with the plan to spend most of my time in Windows. That's stupid. You buy a Mac understanding that you will be running OSX.

@ Judicator: I'll be sure to check that link out in the morning. 5.5 hours sounds quite reasonable. I look forward to finding out more about that.

 

The 15" MBP sure has good battery life, the battery rating indicates that. The 15" MBP battery is rated at 77whr and with Intel integrated graphics you can expect battery life to be extremely good in MacOSX. I would actually expect the 15" version to have the strongest battery life in Apples line up.
I don't know what settings they used though or what are the default settings for this laptop.

The 13" MBP i'm not so sure about. With a 63whr battery and the nvidia 230M powerful integrated graphics it waits to be seen how power conservative this card really is.

With the RAID setup the Sony may well consume a tiny bit more power even though the HD is an SSD. I still don't if you can disable one drive to conserve power in non RAID mode (JBOD) and if switching between both modes RAID-JBOD means that you'll lose your info?

The Sony really isn't any way setup to get great battery life from the box at all and i mean at all. So although reviews can be helpful i tend to look at battery rating and specs more as an indication of what a laptop can get. The Sony has a 59whr battery and has switchable Intel integrated graphics. With those figures i would be looking at around 6hrs-7 battery life with tweaking and flashblock surfing. It also has a removable battery. When i travel abroad i always do take a spare.

If the MBP meets your needs then go for it. To me there are too many compromises so i don't think i will.

p.s i've used both Mac/PC and i can get very good battery life out of PC laptops that have specs lend themselves to that.

 

I don't know TimelineX 5820 is said to last up to 12 hours...

 

Yep, and this is what it all comes down to. People buy Apple either because they're just doing what they're told or what they think is cool, or for OS X, so Apple just has to keep its HW not far enough behind that of its competitors to keep people from switching back to Windows.

As such, I know I'm way, way in the minority here, but this update did the trick for me in that regard. No, it's not quad core and they could have gone with a better GPU, but I'd rather have a slightly less powerful box running OS X, with Apple support, than a Windows machine with better but not outlandishly better specs (as was the case for a while there with Apple still selling C2D 17s), so there you go. Color me owner of a new i7 MBP 17" with a honking big SSD that should hopefully be more than quick enough.

 

If you're just using Mac programming, and price is no issue, then I don't see why you shouldn't get it.

Wow, really? That's pretty damn impressive, particularly if it runs on Core i tech and is 15 inches.

http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/03/31/acer-aspire-timelinex-12-hour-laptop-hands-on-photos/

 

Well, I never saw you explain that first line 50 times, in fact I never saw it until the last post which I responded to last night. If I had, I would not have been so confused but your price comparisons. I shouldn't have gone the "troll" route - so sorry about that.

It's clear we both misunderstood each other. It happens.

Sony's ed discount is 7% to me, vs. 10% for Apple, so to me, at least, I don't end up with a $500 difference at any specs. Even at $400 or so, when the whole package is already in the $2500-$3000 range, it's not enough to swing me off of the computer that I really want. But it certainly will be for some, and it *is* a much better comparison than most, as it has a nice form factor and the right specs and very long battery life.

I'm not saying I won't regret the decision, coming from a PC world. I will probably let you all know. But I'm willing to pay a little extra for the computer I really want, and the main point I've been trying to make throughout this thread is that I'm paying extra for *something*, not just for "prestige" or "Apple tax". Design, size, specs, battery life, OS-X, and a trackpad that I really enjoy using. Z has 4/6, which is better than most PCs, but not the last two. We'll see what happens.

 

I'm not a huge Apple fan. No machine has ever made me angrier than my old MBP, with its incessant hardware faults and software crashes. Having said that...

I don't think that folks who like Macs are irrational sheep. JohnSavage is right that you do get something extra, compared to the typical windows laptop: an excellent human interface. Vogelbung (no Apple fan, either) made the same point earlier.

I'm sure some will disagree - we all have different tastes. But with the MBP, a lot of people see a laptop that is a pleasure to handle, to type into, and to look at (both when it's on and when it's off). You also get stellar battery life and tech support in English (along with an ever-increasing retail network that provides support).

 

Epic battery life is epic.

Now if they would just tell us about the quality of the screen and the resolution! At those prices, I might have to step down into 15". Lol

 

Dont hold your breath - its going to be mediocre contrast and 1366 x 768. That's the problem with this industry in general - screen quality is in the toilet. Which is why the few that bother to offer a quality screen can reap a premium.

 

Screen quality used to be important. I remember 1680*1050 used to be common on P4 HP laptops.

 

^^
oh how I love 1680*1050... it truly is the perfect rez. not to expensive to produce with a ton of space... my Elitebook has a 1680*1050 and I love it!

 

memories...

tbh, it still matters. you just have to be willing to pay more than $1700 for it (unless you find a great coupon).

I should have known better. But it's nice to dream.

 

I actually prefer fixing and working on those Pentium 4 laptops because of that nice screen resolution rather than those horrid Core i3 laptops with 1366*768.

Sad part is that in the day, it wasn't a premium.

 

Yup, till the companies realized they could charge for a premium screen and get away with it. >.>

 

Inb4 crts forever.

 

5.5 hours with ANOTHER BATTERY, ergo the 4.65kg all-up weight quoted. Around 2.75 - 3 hours a charge is the best I've been able to get from the FX3800M / i7-920xm combo. Read, please.

The M6500 is a heavy-hitter (notebook wise) with no real compromises for power savings. As I said elsewhere, at what is after all a fair CPU load plus a reasonable GPU load, the T9900 17-inch MBP screams along (and I don't mean in terms of speed but the fan volume) at temps approaching 90C for both the GPU and CPU, while the top-spec M6500 lopes along at ~45C / ~60C for the CPU and GPU respectively - and isn't directly comparable to the 17-inch Macbook Pro, as the machines are in a different class. I've seen previous Apple-addled and relatively uninformed attempts to employ the (previous incarnation of) machine to put Apple in a good light, but it would be like comparing a BMW X5 to a Cougar MRAP.

The HP Elitebooks would be a more direct comparison (despite also being in another performance class to the Macs), being somewhat heavier than the MBPs but with flexible power options and better built than the Apples.

 

Well, the 11 inch version has a screen res of 1366x768, so here's hoping that the 15 inch version goes higher than that. I'm kinda interested to see how long the battery last with a Core i7 and 5650. If it gets over 10 hours, then wow......

 

I am quite sure that is the case and even benchies have proved it..

Get the envy... its quite good. You get 2-3 hours battery life with an internal battery and if u really need more battery life u can get a 12 cell slab battery (kinda external but read up about it ), which will increase weight and battery life by 3-5 hours i think..

The screen res really killed it for me... gee , i think 1600X900 should be made minimum screen res...

 

Nevermind, the TimelineX are all 1366x768. Damn it.

 

hard to say, "get envy" when the Envy 17 hasn't even been offiically announced.

and yea, I'm familiar with the "slice". I have 2 of them for my tablet elitebook.

I don't like it. it's thin, but adds considerable heft to it. I suspect the "slice" on the yet unannounced 17" will be very heavy.

I prefer to hope that we'll see switchable graphics on it.

Nope.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6147831&postcount=274

only thing proven is that your mileage may vary based on driving habits.

 

What's your opinion on the Dell Studio 17?

 

in brief: low screen resolution (1600x900) is low. and that's the best you can do for the Studio 17.

remember, much of my work is photshop. for me 1920x1080 is my minimum. I'd consider 1680x1050 if I decide to open my options up to the 15" range...but I would really like to stick with what I'm most comfortable with...and that is 17".

 

Yep, you might have to go with Apple.

The only other Laptops are the Sony Viao F, which possesses a 1920x res (when upgraded) and a 16.4' screen with Nvidia 330M graphics. It also pushes 4.5 hours of battery life with a large capacity battery. Pretty well priced too.

I already mentioned the Acer 8940, which gets around three hrs with a 1920x res.

There's also the Toshiba Qosimio, which gets 3 hrs on an 18' screen with 1920x res.

There's also the HP dv8t.....But, meh.