+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: New MacBook Pros! (/showthread.php?tid=95698)
Re: New MacBook Pros! - Paul F. - 04-13-2010
At this point what would be a super spectacular update, realistically speaking?
$200 across the board price cuts throughout the Macbook and Macbook Pro line.
Not saying it would happen, but you asked what would be super spectacular...
Re: New MacBook Pros! - N-OS X-tasy! - 04-13-2010
Silencio wrote:
I don't think the "high res" screen on the 15" is going to be that bad
The primary reason I've been eyeing the 17" over the 15" in recent months is the vastly superior (to my eye) screen on the 17". The new HD option on the 15" could swing me back to the smaller laptop if image quality is comparable to the 17".
Re: New MacBook Pros! - Silencio - 04-13-2010
Paul F. wrote:
At this point what would be a super spectacular update, realistically speaking?
$200 across the board price cuts throughout the Macbook and Macbook Pro line.
The pricing on at least the new 15" MBPs is a bit odd. $100 price increase on the low-end configuration, $100 price cut on the high-end config. I don't think the midrange configuration is much of a bargain compared to the other two: my best advice on this round is to go big or go cheap. I think we're going to splash on the Core i7 15".
Re: New MacBook Pros! - IronMac - 04-13-2010
I'm probably going to purchase the 15" i7 since I want the machine for the long haul.
Re: New MacBook Pros! - Sam3 - 04-14-2010
My, my, did I garner some replies. Sheesh!
N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=Sam3]
17" is too big, I had the G4 version at one time.
You can't compare the two. Back when I bought my 15" three years ago, I too avoided the 17" because it was too bulky. The current 17" feels like my old 15", and has a much nicer screen than the 15", to boot.
I've been waiting for this day since Christmas, when I gave my 15" to my stepson as a gift. Papa's getting a new MBP!
Are the newer 17" lighter and more comfortable than the G4 17"? I always liked my 14" TiBook, and when the first MBP's came out, the 15" felt just right for me. The 17" G4 was too bulky, and the first 17" MBP's looked and felt the same.
N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
[quote=Sam3]
Oh, and the 17" not having an i7 option? What's up with that?
Umm... it does. $200 extra.
I didn't see that. It's as a BTO only, though.
N-OS X-tasy! wrote: [quote=Sam3]
Still only two USB slots? In this day and age? I can think of four devices that people could want to use simultaneously; mouse, hard drive, card reader, wireless cell card.
So get a USB hub. Or even better, a Windows laptop. Nothing to complain about there!
Hub = another piece to carry around.
Windows laptop? Umm... no thanks. I'm trying to repair a 17" Dell Precison at work right now. Heavy, heavy, bulky!
deckeda wrote:
[quote=Sam3]
Still only two USB slots? In this day and age? I can think of four devices that people could want to use simultaneously; mouse, hard drive, card reader, wireless cell card.
There are 3 on the 17."
If you got one of the smaller models maybe you could limp along with "crappy FireWire" for one of the items in your list? If it's not too much of a hardship.
But not on the 15". If these machines are termed "Pro", then they should be equipped better than non-pro machines.
Where did I ever call Firewire crappy? Geez!
I do use a drive in a OWC Firewire enclosure, but for the average user who needs external drives, they most likely will not roll their own, but purchase one. Most external drives are USB-only.
deckeda wrote:
And now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go play with the flap to the ExpressCard slot on my 15" MBP I have yet to use.
(Settle down, folks, YES that's one of the reasons I got a Late '08 model, to potentially "future proof it." So far the joke's on me, still.)
I have and use an eSATA and a card reader ExpressCard/34.
Oh, and why didn't the 13" come out with the i3? In the PC world the i3 is in the lower end models, Core 2 Duos are almost history.
Re: New MacBook Pros! - decay - 04-14-2010
I agree re: the PRO nomenclature; it's either a way to falsely boost the price, or not really accurate; as I said, 7200 RPM drives stock would be appropriate for a professional machine. People could always custom downgrade to 5400 to save $50 or so.
Why does a PRO-level machine have:
NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory ?
Re: New MacBook Pros! - Silencio - 04-14-2010
Sam3 wrote:
Oh, and why didn't the 13" come out with the i3? In the PC world the i3 is in the lower end models, Core 2 Duos are almost history.
Because Apple got caught in the crossfire of Intel and Nvidia's little spat over chipsets for Arrandale. If Apple wanted to ship 13" MBPs with i3, they would have also had to include a discrete GPU and VRAM like they did on the bigger models because Intel's shared graphics kind of suck compared to Nvidia's.
Wonder why Apple is such a control freak of a company? Because when other companies are in control of vital technology Apple needs, it always seems like Apple's getting screwed over, one way or another.
And as for 7200RPM drives: at least for the 500GB models, the speed difference between the 5400 and 7200RPM models is marginal.