Also was hoping to get a 17" model, but it looks like they don't plan on updating the form factor for that one. Oh well...
See.. that's a shame.. and I don't understand why Apple wouldn't make two versions to appeal to at least the same userbase that they have now. So annoying. I'm really regretting being an OS X user today.
Wonderful Pork, the current 2 GHz "Penryn" CPU is probably quite close to your 2.16 GHz Merom CPU.
This is during a tough economic environment/recession and a few months after they hinted at a lower-margin SKU. I like the new products, but the value proposition is not a strength.
No, I didn't miss anything and my opinion has nothing to do with how much fanboys will pay for shiny new models. As mentioned in today's show, the MacBook is Apple's best selling computer ever. It's a high-volume item and value certainly matters. Dropping the plastic base model to $999 doesn't count for anything.
Yes, the MacBook platform is overall clearly stronger but nearly a year after the last update, Apple has effectively raised prices.
This is during a tough economic environment/recession and a few months after they hinted at a lower-margin SKU. I like the new products, but the value proposition is not a strength.
No, I didn't miss anything and my opinion has nothing to do with how much fanboys will pay for shiny new models. As mentioned in today's show, the MacBook is Apple's best selling computer ever. It's a high-volume item and value certainly matters. Dropping the plastic base model to $999 doesn't count for anything.
Poor color reproduction for number one. Right now I'm working in Television and doing my own thing on the side, and I want the accurate color representation, and secondly, my notebook is my ONLY computer. It's not a companion to a desktop. I need to be able to use it everywhere and turning up the brightness will burn through the battery.
Hopefully they'll go back to matte screens on a future revision with the amount of backlash. I was actually interested in a 17" for the higher resolution and depending on how that upgrade looks, I might bite on a new 17".
I was really kidding on the chicklet keuboard stopping me from buying, but a glossy-only is a show stopper.
If you guys want to see something scary, check this video out
:http://www.cn2.com/video.php?media_id=000469
i hope they're not "fixing" that price i saw earlier :laugh:
*edit*
it's still there in the refurb section.
blackbook or a bigass tv? what economic crisis?
secretanchitman
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 9,353
- 23
- 91
regarding macbook pros:
totally agree with you here. the specs on the mbp look decent (9400/9600GT combo), replaceable hard drive, displayport, ddr3, but no 1680x1050 option and glossy screens? i dont freaking think so. that black looks absolutely horrid on the macbook pros. as i stated in my earlier post, the reason why the mbp was great is because it offered a matte display and the entire case looked GOOD, unlike this new one where it basically emulates a portable imac/mba (the two designs that i hate and are the worst imo). you can use any color you want apple, but glass on the display? seriously? and with phil schillers idiotic and possibly revolting comment about glossy screens:
Q: Concern about the glossy screens. Are you going to offer another option?
A: Steve: We're going all glass -- we won't offer another version. Phil: You offset the reflection by the brightness, and consumers love it. One of the great things about a notebook is you can turn it however you want!
no WAY are they getting a sale on the macbook pro from me.
bottom line is, if they made the mbp look basically exactly like the mba, but with a matte or glossy option like the old days, no glass OR a black border on the display, it would have been perfect.
regarding the macbooks:
they've made too many changes to bring the macbook up to the macbook pro line. the looks, sure. ill give them that, but whats weird is that now its not about graphics or the screen resolution that make people jump to the mbp, but its FIREWIRE. why the hell did apple leave out firewire on the macbook? its awesome that the macbook got the 9400, backlit keyboard, SSD option, better cpu, etc, but no firewire? and great job apple, at reducing the price of the old macbook to just 999. with those specs, it should be even lower...at MOST it should have been 750-800 dollars.
regarding the macbook air:
awesome. thats how it should have been from the start. bigger hard drive(s), faster cpu, MUCH better graphics. i like that machine a lot, even though its a bit overpriced and the design is meh.
regarding everything else:
reduced student discount? hate that (mbp with a student discount used to be 1799, now its 1899, and so on and so forth). 17" mbp gets all the nice upgrades, like the standard matte or gloss (thankfully) 1920x1200 LED screen, 320GB hd, 4GB of ram. whats up with apple raping you in the dongles and adapters?
5/10 apple. you screwed over the pro users who needed a matte screen, made it look ugly (imo), you brought too many changes to the macbooks so now the pro seems kind of awkward in that high price considering the macbook has most of the pro features, but you redeemed yourself with a much better gpu in the macbook and macbook air, along with the usual bump in specs. lastly, the one more thing was disappointing; should have been together with the mba/mbp updates too, not as a "separate" thing.
So todays new "base" Macbook for $1299 has the equivalent TWO year old processor? Though, I guess its OK seeing how if they had these back then I wouldn't have gone for the Pro.
KeithP
Diamond Member
- Jun 15, 2000
- 5,664
- 202
- 106
I can't speak for Bearxor but I have a BlackBook with a glossy screen and don't like it. I can live with it, but I won't be buying another laptop with a glossy screen. The reflections are distracting. Plus, in the case of the now previous generation MacBooks, they simply aren't high quality screens.
It will be interesting to see one of these new screens in person. LED backlighting doesn't automatically make for a great display.
Also, I just realized the new MacBooks lack a firewire port. I can't believe Apple did that. I use the FW port on mine all the time.
-KeithP
I'mnot so torn up about the loss of firefire. I mean, let's be honest, firewire lost in the battle against USB. I think I called for apple to drop firewire from notebooks sometime last year, but I'm happy they kept in on the pro and dropped it to a FW800-only port since I can get a FW800-FW400 cable.
About DisplayPort adapters, Displayport is just sop new. Give it some time, and those DVI dongles will go down in price.
About DisplayPort adapters, Displayport is just sop new. Give it some time, and those DVI dongles will go down in price.
That's why I and others are questioning the value of the new MacBooks, although the platform as a whole is stronger.
Keep in mind the CPU is just one component and that overall system performance should be improved. I think most of us feel it's a crock that the year-old $1299 MacBook has a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo but the spanking new model comes in at 2 GHz. Besides this, the $1499 price point was edged up to $1599!
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
I just checked out the new offerings. Nothing to make me rush out and replace my mac. However, if someone wanted to buy my macbook pro I would sell it and buy a new one of these. I would probably get a macbook and not a pro. I do not game much and I mostly use it with a external monitor. So the macbook would work perfect.
I do have questions on that new display though. I hope they provide some option to use it with my existing macbook pro. It is just what I am looking for.
I do have questions on that new display though. I hope they provide some option to use it with my existing macbook pro. It is just what I am looking for.
i'm disappointed there was no price drop. I would have like to see the entry for a macbook pro to be lower. move the air to 1599, pro to 1799... have macbook at 999/1199/1399
loss of fw really sucks. macbook is just about what I need.. but I'd like to dump video onto it too. guess it's still imac or hackintosh next for me
loss of fw really sucks. macbook is just about what I need.. but I'd like to dump video onto it too. guess it's still imac or hackintosh next for me
I'm with you on that one SourceNinja. I am in no hurry whatsoever to get replace my first gen (really really first gen) MacBook, and although the 2.4GHz would be sufficiently faster than my exisiting system to make me think the upgrade is worth it, I am not going to go out of my way for it.
LtPage1
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2004
- 6,311
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
1440x900
why the hell are all the 15.4" LCDs so low res?
Have you used one? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want a display that was any more dense than that. Watching 1080p video would be sweet, but everything else would be awkward, I feel.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
I have a 1900x something dell notebook. The display is actually un-readable in windows. Looks fine in linux however.
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Originally posted by: ElFenix
1440x900
why the hell are all the 15.4" LCDs so low res?
Have you used one? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want a display that was any more dense than that. Watching 1080p video would be sweet, but everything else would be awkward, I feel.
My 4-year old Inspiron 6000 has a 15" screen with a 1680x1050 screen and the only reason I didn't get the 1920x1200 was that it was another $100 I couldn't afford at the time. I have to give Apple some kudos, because the vast majority of off the shelf laptops only have a 1280x800 screen in the 15" department and a 1440x900 in the 17" models.
Having said that, everytime I boot up my Inspiron 6000 for something, I wish I could transplant the screen over to my MBP. It's not as bright, but I typically leave the brightness down to the lower third (another reason why I want to keep a matte screen) and the amount of work I could do in the 1680x1050 screen is amazing compared to the 1440x900. I can't even have two full browser windows open on most sites with the MBP, or 2 word documents for that matter.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Originally posted by: ElFenix
1440x900
why the hell are all the 15.4" LCDs so low res?
Have you used one? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want a display that was any more dense than that. Watching 1080p video would be sweet, but everything else would be awkward, I feel.
i've used smaller screens with more pixels. so, yes. 1680x1050 would be perfect. my current 14" 4:3 notebook has a vertical height of 8.4" and resolution of 1050. a 15.4" widescreen has a vertical height of 8.16" and the same resolution. so not much smaller.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter