Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New MacBook Pro series

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 359 posts

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#231

Post by pmjordan »

moe wrote: post #226
pmjordan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the laptop versions of the Core i* have 3 memory channels (neither do the Socket-1155/1156 desktop versions), so 3x4GB of RAM would be a strange/suboptimal configuration. There probably isn't enough physical space in a 13" laptop for more than 2 modules anyway (unless you sacrifice battery or optical drive space). Even soldering them to the motherboard wouldn't save much space - I think all current 4GB…

unless you sacrifice [...] optical drive space What they really sacrificed here was the opportunity to make a compelling product. It's 2011, when have you last time used an optical drive?

I have no idea why they're still so popular. I can only assume people don't think about it rationally. I don't know anyone who drags DVDs around with them, so why drag around the drive?

Frankly, I haven't needed an optical drive in a laptop since booting from USB drives became practical a few years ago. (happy MacBook Air user here)

It'll be interesting to see if Apple fleshes out its Cinema display into a combined docking station and screen using the Thunderbolt port's potential. Add a DVD drive, HDD for Time Machine, USB/Firewire controllers, ExpressCard slot, whatever, using the PCIe channel in the Thunderbolt.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#232

Post by nevinera »

kenjackson wrote: post #198
ericd wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple reported that they were changing the way they measured/reported battery life with the last MacBook air launch, and explained that it was less favorable, but more realistic.

During transitions like this it would be nice to give both numbers on the new and old machines. This at least gives people some type of comparison point.

While that would be nice for the techie crowd, it would read to the typical user like "we were lying before, sorry about that". Not very feasible.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#233

Post by jjcm »

sandGorgon wrote: post #100

hmm - you need to go to 1799$ before you end up with a half decent graphics card and 2199$ for a decent card. Compare it with a Dell XPS 15 Sandy Bridge - $1049 for i7 2620M, 1920X1080 display, nVidia GT525 Optimus card, HD Camera. For a first time possible mac buyer (me) - is it well justified ?

I bought a mac for the first time about 3 months ago (a 13" macbook air). This is after being an IBM guy for years. I gotta say I'm very satisfied with my purchase. The hardware build quality is great and the support is top notch. I had an issue with my logic board, brought it in to an apple store, paid nothing and walked out with a fixed computer two days later. The lack of a 2-4 week turnaround time is wonderful for repairs, and the unix OS is really nice. I dont think I'll switch over to a mac desktop, but for laptops I'm sold.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#234

Post by larrywright »

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…

Good catch, I swore I saw that they offered 1080p on the 15" but Apples site says otherwise. That said, I have the 17" with 1680x1050, and it's plenty of pixels on a laptop.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#235

Post by rosser »

daviding wrote: post #217
rosser wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Personally, I don't think they're too small. I moved to this machine from a ThinkPad x61 tablet (12.1", 1400x1050 -- just shy of 150 ppi, as opposed to 128-and-change on the MBP), so it's actually a step down in pixel pitch for me. FWIW, I tend to live in the terminal, too.

(That said, part of the reason for the upgrade was that I was starting to notice some "leaning in", myself...)

No direct experience with the 1440x900 screen, so I can't offer any sort of meaningful comparison, but you'd have to make a very compelling case (say, sub three pounds) for me to consider a screen with anything under a vertical kilopixel. (And even then, I'm holding onto a sliver of hope that the Air refresh will bring a higher-res display along with whatever other goodies...)

EDIT: sloppy proofreading.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#236

Post by tesseract »

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…

> Ditching the optical media for longer battery life

I doubt the optical drive uses any significant power at all when it's not in use.

That said, I ditched my own in favor of an SSD + HDD setup and haven't looked back.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#237

Post by astrodust »

phamilton wrote: post #125
kloncks wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 hours (claimed) battery life? That sounds ridiculous. How close (or far away) to the truth is that? Anybody know more?

I think it's with an external battery slice.

Is that some briefcase-sized device you strap to your notebook with bungee cords?

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#238

Post by astrodust »

tesseract wrote: post #236
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…

> Ditching the optical media for longer battery life I doubt the optical drive uses any significant power at all when it's not in use. That said, I ditched my own in favor of an SSD + HDD setup and haven't looked back.

I think what's meant is using that space for battery and not a useless optical drive.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#239

Post by russell_h »

tesseract wrote: post #236
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…

> Ditching the optical media for longer battery life I doubt the optical drive uses any significant power at all when it's not in use. That said, I ditched my own in favor of an SSD + HDD setup and haven't looked back.

I think he meant (or this is certainly what I was hoping for) that removing the optical bay would leave space for a much larger battery.

Re: New MacBook Pro series

#240

Post by astrodust »

hackermom wrote: post #97
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…

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.

The number of potential customers for this model that actually know what that means is very small.

If Apple put in a 1900x1080 screen, what you'd hear instead from consumers is that everything is too tiny to read.

Post reply on HN