|
Title: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Civrock on April 24, 2006, 02:39:33 pm http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/ (not updated yet, it's in the Online Store, though)
5x faster, 36% brighter, still 1-inch thin. - $2799 --- 2.16Ghz Intel Core Duo 17-inch widescreen display 1680 x 1050 resolution 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo(1) 1GB (single SODIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM 120GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive 8x double-layer SuperDrive ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory One FireWire 400, one FireWire 800, and three USB 2.0 ports Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 24, 2006, 05:49:34 pm Notable to early complainers is FW 800 (+ 1 FW 400, 3 USB 2.0) and the 8x Dual layer drive. The question remains whether the MacBook Pro 17's GPU will come stock frequency or undeclocked like the 15.4
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: (SiX)Sheixhundt on April 24, 2006, 05:58:08 pm With towers preceding Laptops in EVERY other apple computer release upgrade, anyone know what the reason for the delay on towers is for this gen? Makes no sense to me. Unless theres a problem we dont know about..
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: *DAMN Mauti on April 24, 2006, 06:01:49 pm Well I guess it's the 64bit difference and as a consequence the RAM limitation, which would be a step back in the high end market, where applications can need much more than 4 Gbyte RAM.
Bye, Mauti Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Civrock on April 24, 2006, 07:01:06 pm With towers preceding Laptops in EVERY other apple computer release upgrade, anyone know what the reason for the delay on towers is for this gen? Makes no sense to me. Unless theres a problem we dont know about.. There is no problem, we're simply waiting on new and much more powerful desktop processors which Intel's working on at the moment. There are speculations about which one of the roadmapped ones it is and I'm reading summertime for release. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Ethion on April 24, 2006, 08:43:19 pm I just can't believe, that we went back to 32bits.
But I guess, Intel's 64 bit processors are waaaayy too warm to be used. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 24, 2006, 09:29:14 pm I just can't believe, that we went back to 32bits. But I guess, Intel's 64 bit processors are waaaayy too warm to be used. Wrong. No need to guess at why, here's the answer: The Next Gen Intel Desktop chip: http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ306.htm#Conroe Apple wouldn't put a lame P4 in a Mac as it would go against everything sane. The 64Bit Intel's aren't that good right now, so that is also a factor. Now, as for your warmth theory, the G5 is far warmer than your average chip and besides that, the G5 enclosure of today can be liquid cooling equipped. Expect announcements on the towers between August 7th to 11th - WWDC [coincidentally the same time the P5 (Conroe) will be out]. Oh yea, and to Sheix; the Core is the first chip of the general architecture, but isn't really a desktop chip, especially not Powermac (workstation) level. Though, for the record, the MacBook Pro 15s held their own against the G5 towers in Final Cut Studio/Motion/Aperture tests. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Ethion on April 24, 2006, 10:13:36 pm Mysterio, so you're stating that IBM's G5 processor is warmer then Intel's 64 bits?
From what I've heard/read, is that the intel's 64 bits(which they have scraped?) was so warm, that it became useless? And that they wouldn't be any good until they went down to 65 nm. Oh and, I agree. P4 would be useless for Apple. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 24, 2006, 10:24:21 pm Mysterio, so you're stating that IBM's G5 processor is warmer then Intel's 64 bits? From what I've heard/read, is that the intel's 64 bits(which they have scraped?) was so warm, that it became useless? And that they wouldn't be any good until they went down to 65 nm. Well, perhaps you believe Intel means Pentium, because they have a good architecture in Itanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium) that simply didn't take off because the PC community can't handle architecture shifts. You can hardly state that some inner development chip that never hit market is relevant here. This is all besides the point, we aren't talking about laptops or iMacs here, we are talking about a tower. There is no chip too hot for a tower (even proven by the nitrogen cooling done in 2000 to OC a Pentium to 5 GHz). Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Ethion on April 24, 2006, 10:48:37 pm Mysterio, so you're stating that IBM's G5 processor is warmer then Intel's 64 bits? From what I've heard/read, is that the intel's 64 bits(which they have scraped?) was so warm, that it became useless? And that they wouldn't be any good until they went down to 65 nm. Well, perhaps you believe Intel means Pentium, because they have a good architecture in Itanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium) that simply didn't take off because the PC community can't handle architecture shifts. You can hardly state that some inner development chip that never hit market is relevant here. This is all besides the point, we aren't talking about laptops or iMacs here, we are talking about a tower. There is no chip too hot for a tower (even proven by the nitrogen cooling done in 2000 to OC a Pentium to 5 GHz). Damn it Myst, you always twist my damn words into something crap. I read some things, I don't go into it all like you do with fuckin everything. As i'm not going in a tech coriculum bs. I read the stuff that I get access to, then it's question on how I take interest of reading through it all. As around one and half years ago I didn't care about Intel processors, only that they were using stupid pentium that is shit. I said stuff in the above post. I put a fuckin question mark in the end of of a sentance.(as seeking your fuckin approval). And wtf? "no chip is too hot for a tower" Sure, there isn't. But tell me one company that has an output over 10.000 units a month/year that sells nitrogen cooled computers with a overclocked Pentiums. geesh.. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 24, 2006, 10:59:26 pm Putting a question mark on a statement doesn't change the context really. But on your point about 10k nitrogen units, actually there is a niche market for such computers (I can't find a reference at this time). Now, in all honesty, do you believe Intel would sell a chip that couldn't be used because it was too hot? That sounds really stupid to me, besides as I mentioned early their adaptign their experience from Itanium onto this next generation yonah (and prior pentium m/III) architecture to make it the best.
Your original post was flawed anyways; the PowerBook G4s weren't ever 64-bit and this is the topic of discussion here. Though now you will say iMacs were 64-bit G5s and I will respond by saying that iMacs have 2 ram slots, you can't max out 32-bit addressing with only two ram slots. All in all the steps forward well outweigh any negative steps. P.S. You shouldn't use those "curse" words so frequently as it can only harm your cause; which in this case would be adding to the discussion. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Ethion on April 24, 2006, 11:16:26 pm I never stated that the (PB's)G4 chips were 64 bits, I was commenting on why they went back to 32 bit processing instead of going all in with 64, but sure. Intel got a nice plan for themselves, and it's hard to put a 64 bit processor into such a small casing and not put a big fan on it.
The thing is, I don't see the point of the "regular" user to get a computer that uses a turbine to cool itself down. Sure, you can say that the regular user will instead get a less demanding computer. But as I see it, the common user is a gamer or a guy sitting in a office day in and day out. You will probably say that the itanium never were meant to put into office use, or into a gamers hand, that they would use it in their servers and what not. But it gets expensive with processors like Itanium, and that's probably why they canceled it anyway. P.S. And I can't actually believe the nitrogen units "story" until I see an actual reference of it. P.S.S(or what ever it might be) You try write a second-hand language at night, with a little dyslexia. You just bug me out. I'm going to bed now, I can argue with you tomorrow. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: PUNiSHER™ on April 24, 2006, 11:22:14 pm I can't wait for the new MacBook's (ibook), they probably aren't gona be near as good as the MacBook Pro's but at least they will be cheaper in price.
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 24, 2006, 11:35:23 pm I never stated that the (PB's)G4 chips were 64 bits, I was commenting on why they went back to 32 bit processing instead of going all in with 64, but sure. Intel got a nice plan for themselves, and it's hard to put a 64 bit processor into such a small casing and not put a big fan on it. The thing is, I don't see the point of the "regular" user to get a computer that uses a turbine to cool itself down. Sure, you can say that the regular user will instead get a less demanding computer. But as I see it, the common user is a gamer or a guy sitting in a office day in and day out. You will probably say that the itanium never were meant to put into office use, or into a gamers hand, that they would use it in their servers and what not. But it gets expensive with processors like Itanium, and that's probably why they canceled it anyway. and to clarify, a gamer is not a regular user. Gamers tend to overdo their computers and sacrifice a lot of sanity to make their "rig" get 2 more FPS. The G5 was a really good start, but IBM shifted away from developing it into it's potential and let it become one of the hottest/msot power hungry chips in recent years. Most people in office jobs would be happy with a Pentium M based HP sub-tower; these aren't exactly the people the powermac or MacBook target. The Mac Mini perfectly fits this market, but then again who would want a powerhouse that can run windows and OSX while being professional and space efficient. (Rant against idiots in IT departments) P.S. And I can't actually believe the nitrogen units "story" until I see an actual reference of it. Most 64-Bit chips are actually on smaller dies as it isn't actual a physical size difference, just a extra couple of controllers and such messes. Actually, the iMac G5 rarely used it's fans on any audiable level because the airflow over the chip was well designed, the G5 was hot, but that was a design flaw that didn't directly relate to 64-bit processing. The Itanium was meant for office and server use (then expanding into general public), one of the reasons it was so expensive was that it had low yields and lower (yet) sales. They haven't cancelled Itanium and it's still an influence (a positive one) on chip design today. I would consider it when Intel began a turnaround from the MHz war that left their chips as efficient as Russia in a Tom Clancy book. P.S. I can't find a direct reference to the more complete (non-project) nitrogen computers from earlier, but here is documentation of some students doing the same thing, except a bit on the large side and.. well being made on a table... out of wood. http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/ P.P.S. I would take that up, except I don't have a second language. (Take that French Canadian attempts at make us learn in school) Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 24, 2006, 11:44:20 pm To separate my posts so I can talk a little about the MacBooks.
There have been recent rumors that the MacBook will be all core duo. The lost likely scenario is this: Mid to late May, Intel releases the 2.33 GHz Core Duo and drops prices on other models. Apple Computers is effected thusly: iMac: 1.83, 2.0, 2.13 MacBook Pro 15": 2.0, 2.13 (*) [All duo] MacBook Pro 17": 2.33 MacBook 13.3" (iBook): 1.66, 1.83 [All duo] Mac Mini: Duo - 1.66 [may get 1.83, but all duo unless solo price drops] Furthermore I would expect a X1300 to be used in the MacBooks only because it seems standard in that range. Historically speaking, the iBook has always been far ahead of the Mac Mini in terms of GPU (9200 vs 9650) so I would expect this to stay the same. Also, according to recent reports they are likely to offer the MacBook in colours (whether it will be metal [see iPod Mini] or plastic [See iMac original] is not known). This will likely be a high selling computer if Apple markets it well. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: PUNiSHER™ on April 25, 2006, 12:37:05 am Is the X1300 Video Card any good for gaming? Or I should say is this going to be good enough to play newly released games?
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 25, 2006, 01:16:09 am I would call it decent. About on par with 6600. Below are some benchmarks:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=172&type=expert&pid=10 (Doom + more) I guess good around. Apple may do something like did with the last iBooks. iMacs had a 9600 with ~128MB VRAM, so they give the iBook a 9550 ~32MB VRAM. In reality what's most likely is a ATI card that would compare thusly: (iMac) ATI • X1600 w/ 128-256 VRAM (higher clock rate) (MacBook) ATI • X1?00 w/ 64-128 VRAM (moderate clock rate) Overall, I really don't believe the Intel Integrated will make it into the MacBooks as it would put it extremely out of class with $999+ Laptops. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Civrock on April 25, 2006, 02:22:04 pm http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/48AAEE3A287A6213CC25714F000230BC
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on April 25, 2006, 11:57:24 pm I skimmed through that report and I don't quite see their point as all that valid. My main objection is with the mention of Woodcrest in workstations (Powermac/Mac Pro) as it would be a bit odd to put a server processor in the flagship tower of Apple; not that I'm against 2 four core processors
I think the end of Pentium 4 was seen when this benchmark test showed the horrid truth: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/25/dothan_over_netburst/page11.html A Pentium M beating up the desktop processors (when put in a desktop and mildly over clocked) was a great sign back then; especially since that's when the Apple + Intel talk began to be rumored. [ P.S. It's funny that Apple's built in spellchecker doesn't know the word Pentium ;) ] Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BFG on May 03, 2006, 10:38:18 am the 17 inch is a thing of beauty. Mate of mine caught a glimpse of a guy with one on the train the other day and looking over his shoulder he said the thing was blindingly fast. :D
I just can't wait for the pro towers :D Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: :MoD:Shade on May 03, 2006, 08:42:18 pm I don't think a 17" laptop is pratical, you have to draw the line between speed and portibility.
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on May 03, 2006, 09:49:21 pm Well, I guess if you feel that way this isn't the product for you. but I personally don't feel that 2 inches more diagonally (maybe 1 on each side in width- if that) would qualify as a huge change in carrying size while it is the same thickness and relatively the same weight. What's all this constant "it's too big" from many people? It's probably no bigger than the 14.2 inch iBook (with huge boarder). Oh here's some statistical comparison:
- iBook G4 (14.2") Width: 12.7 " Depth: 10.2 " Thickness: 1.35 " - MacBook Pro (17") Width: 15.4 " Difference: 2.7" Depth: 10.4 " Difference: 0.2" Thickness: 1 " Difference: -0.35" That's to a 14" iBook G4. The MacBook Pro 15" is quite close. Calling this thing unmanageable or too big is ridiculous. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: (SiX)Sheixhundt on May 04, 2006, 02:58:34 am Ever tried to open a 15 inch laptop on coach class airline seat?
Shade ABSOLUTELY has a point, if thats your mode of travel. I can barely open mine on Southwest, and would be completely impossible to work on a 17" on that same flight. Not to mention the heat that thing puts out if you WERENT on a flight and just had it sitting in your lap. My 15" gets ridiculously hot..and almost discourages me from using it, unless i can set it somewhere..other than ON me. So really, it all depends on your mode of travel, how often, and for how long...as to whats ridiculous or not. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_GhostSniper on May 04, 2006, 04:20:31 am I prefer the 17" model to anything else...no matter what the discomfort or space limitations. Probably because I'm getting older and need the bigger display but hey, you younger guys go for those tiny screens while you can![/size]
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BFG on May 04, 2006, 09:48:11 am Thats true shade / shiex, but it all depends on your needs. For some folks its a case of having a desktop computer that they can move... a 17inch laptop that doubles as a desktop that can just be picked up and taken to the office etc...
Then again i've used my 12inch PB on the train in the UK and well anything bigger would have been inpossible. I can only sit in the Disabled priority seats and sharing that space with anything more than a very small laptop ain't gonna happen!! Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: *DAMN Mauti on May 04, 2006, 06:00:53 pm If laptop at all I go only with a 12' or 13' widescreen. Anything else is too big for my taste. It shouldn't be bigger than a normal college block(A4). This is the size I consider portable. It shouldn't be in my way and should get into my backpack easily. Whenever I see Elandrion with his 15' I think no that's not what I want to cary with me every day to university.
Further battery life is also much longer. However I think the size of your laptop depends on your need, and every size has its right to exist. Bye, Mauti Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: Ethion on May 04, 2006, 08:45:01 pm I'd rather got with a 15" then 12" or 17".
You get usually get good performance, and it's not to big, and not small either. But a 13-14" would work as well, I guess. Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: PUNiSHER™ on May 06, 2006, 07:08:35 am Rumor sites are reporting the new Intel MacBooks (ibooks) are being released on tuesday.
"An anonymous source claims that Apple stores are receiving materials for a new window display that's labeled "do not open until Tuesday, May 9th." The source also claims that Apple has directed its stores to push iBook sales this weekend, presumably to clear out inventory." www.macrumors.com Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BTs_Mysterio on May 06, 2006, 06:25:46 pm I still bet on Intel Integrated on low end and X1300-1500 on higher end. 13 across the line, with all duos to match.
Title: Re: MacBook Pro 17" released Post by: BFG on May 11, 2006, 08:41:32 pm more relevant to any 15ich macbookpro owners is the news that there is a FW800 PCI express card now available here (http://www.nitroav.com/product/444/) courtesy of nitroAV
|