New MacBook Pro series • Hacker News Board

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#211

Post by rdl » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:42 PM UTC

jasonrr wrote: post #136

wheels wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason I wasn't hoping for that is because I intend to stuff a 512 GB aftermarket SSD into my next MBP and I'd rather not pay through the nose for Apple's upgrade option.

They are only charging $1100-$1200 for the upgrade. Where are you getting a high-quality aftermarket 512GB SSD for much less than that (forget that you have to install it yourself)? edit: pricing differs slightly depending on model

Especially if you get a list price discount (negotiated for small business, big employer, association, government, military) the apple upgrade price is below market price, at least for the 512.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#212

Post by treo » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:42 PM UTC

jhancock wrote: post #197

Uchikoma wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 2 year old X200 has 1.3 hours battery time, decreasing rapidly. The display plastic is broken, the camera is broken and the mouse tracking nob is broken. It's the worst piece of laptop hardware I've ever had (compared to older IBM Thinkpads, DELLs and iBooks, Macbooks and MacbooksPro).

Agreed. Try going 4 years older. My IBM branded X41 is the finest laptop I've owned and ubuntu works flawless on it. I bought a replacement battery for it and get a good 5 hours and a few days standby. I like it so much, I even consider not telling people so I can buy up more used ones and set aside for future parts. But hey, what's life if you don't share. Considering the cost of these on ebay (as much as some new n…

I always like to say that you could beat somebody with a x41 over the head and then continue working. Sometime ago a friend of mine actually had to use his X41 to defend himself. He did just that and it worked just fine for some more months until it died from an unrelated problem.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#213

Post by pluies » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:44 PM UTC

eof wrote: post #130

No USB 3.0 is surprising/bad.

It might be Intel trying to impose their Light Peak format. They already decided to postpone USB3 in their motherboards in favor of Light Peak.

Maybe the sweetheart deal with Apple over being the first ones to implement this tech included a "let's not do USB3 too fast, shall we?" clause.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#214

Post by rdl » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:45 PM UTC

joonap wrote: post #207

weaksauce wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they use s-ips screens in the 15" and up. Not sure about the newer 13" but the older one was tn which is junk. A lot of manufacturers use tn which has probably the lowest quality of the different types of screens.

Nope. They have all been TN so far. Just better quality TNs. I've been wishing for an IPS on a Macbook for years. Looks like this update didn't bring any change to that matter.

I believe the last commercially available IPS laptop was the think pad t43p. The actual plant making 15" IPS panels shut down. (EDIT: wow, thank you! (I forgot about the T60p, but that's also discontinued; the HP EliteBook having a 17" is amazing though...I may have to get one of those!)

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#215

Post by jarek » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:46 PM UTC

dlevine wrote: post #193

hackermom wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost choked on a sip of tea when I noticed that the 13" "Pro" is still stuck with a 1280*800 display. Talk about boneheaded move.

Why is that a boneheaded move? I think that 1280x800 fits plenty of information on a 13" screen. I usually run an external display for more space. If anything, 1400x900 on the new MBA seems a little bit small (and Apple doesn't allow you to bump the size of everything up like you can in Windows). It's interesting that 1680x1050 is still an upcharge on the 15".

> Why is that a boneheaded move?

Because people want higher resolutions without using an external display. Or at least a choice.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#216

Post by brudgers » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:46 PM UTC

icefox wrote: post #150

brudgers wrote: post #143

TL;DR A year and a half after quad core i7 mobile processors become available (and two and half years after the first quad core mobile processors were released), the MBP gets them.

The first ones ran hotter/used more power than the case was designed for.

The reason was Apple wanted to sell older processors at a high markup. It was not as if Intel kept their roadmap a mystery or that Apple was not capable of designing a new case and by the time unibody 17" MBP came on the market Penryn had been out for more than a quarter.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#217

Post by daviding » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:51 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #175

larrywright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My US$.02: - Unless you need the higher processor speed or the Thunderbolt port, previous gen refurbished should be quite a deal. - The 15" high res (1920x1080) is the sweet spot for portability and desktop use. I have a 17" now, and it's really just too big. When I bought mine though (late 2007), the 15" didn't have a high res display. If I were buying one now, it would be the 15" 1080p or the 13" Air (ultraportable…

Where are you seeing 1080p on the 15"? I have the last-gen 15" with the anti-glare upgrade, but was disappointed only to be able to get 1680x1050, so I was pretty excited at the prospect of that much higher a resolution. Looking at the site, though, the upgrade is still just 1680x1050. I think I'll just continue to hold out hope that the rumored refresh of the Air line, offering Sandy Bridge chips, comes in June. Tha…

Really interested in your feedback of the 1440 vs the 1680 on the 15" screen. I spend lots of time in iTerm/TextMate doing web dev. My current MBP 1440 is ok for me, but thinking I should go higher this time.

Will the fonts be too small? (hey, I'm not that old but concerned I'll be 'leaning in' to a screen where everything is too tiny).

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#218

Post by code_duck » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

maggit wrote: post #66

jokermatt999 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot of people here use a MBP as their main development device, at least from what I've seen in the comments. However, this topic being near the top of the front page does amuse me, because I saw several accusations of HN having a strict anti-Apple bias. That's not to say that there's a strict pro-Apple bias, however, just that the community seems to be genuinely split.

> the community seems to be genuinely split. Or nuanced, perhaps? I mean, I am very opposed to everything iOS because of politics, but I am very pleased with my MBP. I don't need to downvote Apple's announcement of new MBPs just because I don't agree with the politics surrounding iOS.

That's a good thing, considering you can't downvote articles on HN.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#219

Post by jarek » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:58 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #214

joonap wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. They have all been TN so far. Just better quality TNs. I've been wishing for an IPS on a Macbook for years. Looks like this update didn't bring any change to that matter.

I believe the last commercially available IPS laptop was the think pad t43p. The actual plant making 15" IPS panels shut down. (EDIT: wow, thank you! (I forgot about the T60p, but that's also discontinued; the HP EliteBook having a 17" is amazing though...I may have to get one of those!)

The T60p also had one, and the Thinkpad tablets at least through X200t had an IPS (Flexview) option. It doesn't appear to be an option on the more recent tablets.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#220

Post by younata » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 5:59 PM UTC

siglesias wrote: post #64

wheels wrote: post #18

Color me disappointed. I was hoping for: • Ditching the optical media for longer battery life • 4 cores in the 13" • Max RAM of 12 GB (this one isn't listed ... maybe?) • The higher resolution 1440x900 resolution in the 13" that the Macbook Air has Altogether it's a pretty wussy update. Basically it looks like the diff (on the 13" model, which is what I care about) is: • Faster CPU (finally!) • Thunderbolt port (coun…

>>• 3 hours less battery life The old battery tests were unrealistic. They advertised 8 hours on the 17'', but who really got even close to that under normal use? I'm thankful they're taking the hit on pure battery life numbers to report an honest, realistic test.

They advertised 10 hours for my (now) last-gen MacBook pro. I can easily do 12 hours. And have. Screen brightness at minimum, using terminal.app. I prefer vim to any graphical editor (haven't tried emacs), and nethack is one of my favorite games ever. That's what I spend my long plane rides doing.