Hmm, the price of the Macbook isn't that bad. I was expecting it to cost an arm and a leg. 
Well, I know what I am getting later on.
EDIT: nvm there is FireWire. Awesome!
Well, I know what I am getting later on.
EDIT: nvm there is FireWire. Awesome!
middlehead
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 4,573
- 2
- 81
That, I'd consider hitting. If it's the 1.8 version.
edit: 1799 is the 1.67, the 1.83 starts at 2299. Craptacular.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
Lol, I love how Apple is still up to their old games. 4x the power of their old laptops. While this is probably more accurate than the old G5 to PC comparsions, especially if they take into account the video card upgrade, I still think that may be a bit of an exaggeration. A P-M is a lot more powerful than a G4 cpu, but not twice the power, and just because it has 2 cpus doesn't mean they can double the performance advantage over a single core. Actual performance increase is probably closer to 2x-3x.
Lol, I love how Apple is still up to their old games. 4x the power of their old laptops. While this is probably more accurate than the old G5 to PC comparsions, especially if they take into account the video card upgrade, I still think that may be a bit of an exaggeration. A P-M is a lot more powerful than a G4 cpu, but not twice the power, and just because it has 2 cpus doesn't mean they can double the performance advantage over a single core. Actual performance increase is probably closer to 2x-3x.
single chip dualcore < dual chip dualcore, powermacs will still be more powerful, duh. Not to mention you actually get a real video card (not that it will matter too much on a Mac) and you can power something like a 30" Apple LCD...
sweet. i will be waiting for a 12" MacBook Pro though.
ahh just saw the new iPhoto. perfect for valentine's day
ahh just saw the new iPhoto. perfect for valentine's day
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
sweet
their webpage doesn't work for me, but this does....very odd, won't even let me click the button in this link http://macworld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/mw/index.html
http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/jan/mw2006/m_mw_2006_650_ref.movWell in the keynote Jobs is basing on floating point & some other benchmark, and he said granted not all programs will have such real-world performance gains but it'll be noticeably faster.
Hmm, maybe, maybe synthetics will show that kind of increase, but I was thinking more along the lines of video encoders. Those show about the largest boosts with architectural changes (SSE, dual core) yet still don't match synthetic performance boosts. I'm thinking 3x more powerful for stuff that is easy to improve performance on, twice the power for more general purpose stuff.
Of course, Apple would love synthetic benchmarks considering the G5s could really thrash around Pentiums in those, yet actual performance was never that good. Marketting based off of synthetic performance increases really gives me the impression that Apple tries to be a dishonest company, no better than any company that tried to market a P4 as more powerful based just on mhz. It just happens that in this case the P-Ms come a lot closer to matching their synthetic performance than the G5s ever did.
To give you an idea of what I'm ranting about...
Athlon 64s outperform Athlon XPs by quite a bit in clock for clock performance.
Athlon 64s clock several hundred mhz higher than XPs.
Athlon X2s now have dual core.
Yet, despite a theoretical advantage of quite a bit more than twice the performance, an Athlon X2 4800+ can only manage about twice the performance of an Athlon XP 3200+ in video encoding, and a much smaller increase in just about everything else.
Of course, the G4 is a bit more anemic of a cpu than the XP 3200+.
Taking a PC cpu at around the same level the G4s are at (in this case, a Tbird at 1.4ghz with DDR ram because that's what I can find online), and the Athlon X2 offers around 5.5x the performance. The speeds the new MacIntel books are using are around 2/3rds the clockspeed of a 4800+, so that gives a performance increase of 3 2/3x that of the old G4 chip. Of course, that's assuming that a P-M matches the X2 in clock for clock performance, which it doesn't for video encoding. A 4800+ for more general purpose things offers about 50% performance over an XP 3200+, so since that's half the performance increase seen in encoding then we're looking at a 1.8x increase in performance for the new dual core macs over the old g4 macs. Ok, I made some very rough approximations and guesses, but I don't think a 1.8x increase sounds out of line for a small increase in clock speed and the inefficiency that goes along with multithreading.
ok, don't get sucked into the 2-3x faster and the 4-5x faster for these new Intel inside MACs...
1. everyone knew PPC G5's sucked, but Jobs managed to convince people that it was faster...which is why those intel benches are faster
2. like Jobs said, those are just industry standard benchmarks, they say nothing about real world performance.
3. just because you got a new, faster CPU, doesn't mean the rest of your parts are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster. If those new MACs have hard drives that are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster, then yes, they have the faster computers in the world now. But fact to the matter is, those MACs are just catching up with the rest of the world now. So, they are not faster than PCs, they're just as fast...don't let Jobs market bs cloud your judgement.
I'm glad they're finally using real parts in their computers, but they're still way overpriced.
For the same $1,999 Dell's inspiron 9400 has a faster core Duo processor @ 1.83GHz, a larger 17" screen, more memory @ 1GB, and faster graphics card @ 256MB GeForce GO 7800. The only thing it lacks is a dvd burner, it has a DVD/cd burner combo (the dvd burner upgrade is only $75...)
So, don't get sucked into Apple's yet again, more expensive - inferior hardware
I like their OS better though
1. everyone knew PPC G5's sucked, but Jobs managed to convince people that it was faster...which is why those intel benches are faster
2. like Jobs said, those are just industry standard benchmarks, they say nothing about real world performance.
3. just because you got a new, faster CPU, doesn't mean the rest of your parts are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster. If those new MACs have hard drives that are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster, then yes, they have the faster computers in the world now. But fact to the matter is, those MACs are just catching up with the rest of the world now. So, they are not faster than PCs, they're just as fast...don't let Jobs market bs cloud your judgement.
I'm glad they're finally using real parts in their computers, but they're still way overpriced.
For the same $1,999 Dell's inspiron 9400 has a faster core Duo processor @ 1.83GHz, a larger 17" screen, more memory @ 1GB, and faster graphics card @ 256MB GeForce GO 7800. The only thing it lacks is a dvd burner, it has a DVD/cd burner combo (the dvd burner upgrade is only $75...)
So, don't get sucked into Apple's yet again, more expensive - inferior hardware
I like their OS better though
iamwiz82
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2001
- 30,772
- 13
- 81
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
ok, don't get sucked into the 2-3x faster and the 4-5x faster for these new Intel inside MACs...
1. everyone knew PPC G5's sucked, but Jobs managed to convince people that it was faster...which is why those intel benches are faster
2. like Jobs said, those are just industry standard benchmarks, they say nothing about real world performance.
3. just because you got a new, faster CPU, doesn't mean the rest of your parts are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster. If those new MACs have hard drives that are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster, then yes, they have the faster computers in the world now. But fact to the matter is, those MACs are just catching up with the rest of the world now. So, they are not faster than PCs, they're just as fast...don't let Jobs market bs cloud your judgement.
I'm glad they're finally using real parts in their computers, but they're still way overpriced.
For the same $1,999 Dell's inspiron 9400 has a faster core Duo processor @ 1.83GHz, a larger 17" screen, more memory @ 1GB, and faster graphics card @ 256MB GeForce GO 7800. The only thing it lacks is a dvd burner, it has a DVD/cd burner combo (the dvd burner upgrade is only $75...)
So, don't get sucked into Apple's yet again, more expensive - inferior hardware
I like their OS better though
The Dell is also 8lbs. That is huge in the laptop world. It's not unusual that you get less for the money when you get a smaller laptop. Look at the 3lb Sony.
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
ok, don't get sucked into the 2-3x faster and the 4-5x faster for these new Intel inside MACs...
1. everyone knew PPC G5's sucked, but Jobs managed to convince people that it was faster...which is why those intel benches are faster
2. like Jobs said, those are just industry standard benchmarks, they say nothing about real world performance.
3. just because you got a new, faster CPU, doesn't mean the rest of your parts are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster. If those new MACs have hard drives that are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster, then yes, they have the faster computers in the world now. But fact to the matter is, those MACs are just catching up with the rest of the world now. So, they are not faster than PCs, they're just as fast...don't let Jobs market bs cloud your judgement.
I'm glad they're finally using real parts in their computers, but they're still way overpriced.
For the same $1,999 Dell's inspiron 9400 has a faster core Duo processor @ 1.83GHz, a larger 17" screen, more memory @ 1GB, and faster graphics card @ 256MB GeForce GO 7800. The only thing it lacks is a dvd burner, it has a DVD/cd burner combo (the dvd burner upgrade is only $75...)
So, don't get sucked into Apple's yet again, more expensive - inferior hardware
I like their OS better though
The Dell is also 8lbs. That is huge in the laptop world. It's not unusual that you get less for the money when you get a smaller laptop. Look at the 3lb Sony.
well, it's a 17" laptop...
dell has a 15" on the way, I'm sure it will weigh about the same as the 15" apple, but with the same specs as the inspiron 9400, @ probably $1600....
also, Men don't care about weight
I do see if it may be an issue for women though...
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
ok, don't get sucked into the 2-3x faster and the 4-5x faster for these new Intel inside MACs...
1. everyone knew PPC G5's sucked, but Jobs managed to convince people that it was faster...which is why those intel benches are faster
2. like Jobs said, those are just industry standard benchmarks, they say nothing about real world performance.
3. just because you got a new, faster CPU, doesn't mean the rest of your parts are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster. If those new MACs have hard drives that are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster, then yes, they have the faster computers in the world now. But fact to the matter is, those MACs are just catching up with the rest of the world now. So, they are not faster than PCs, they're just as fast...don't let Jobs market bs cloud your judgement.
I'm glad they're finally using real parts in their computers, but they're still way overpriced.
For the same $1,999 Dell's inspiron 9400 has a faster core Duo processor @ 1.83GHz, a larger 17" screen, more memory @ 1GB, and faster graphics card @ 256MB GeForce GO 7800. The only thing it lacks is a dvd burner, it has a DVD/cd burner combo (the dvd burner upgrade is only $75...)
So, don't get sucked into Apple's yet again, more expensive - inferior hardware
I like their OS better though
The Dell is also 8lbs. That is huge in the laptop world. It's not unusual that you get less for the money when you get a smaller laptop. Look at the 3lb Sony.
Normal laptop weight is 6 to 7 pounds, even on the models companies call "light weight". Plus, you usually don't get the aggressive pricing of Dells, and I've found their overbuilt cases, while they're little more than ugly plastic boxes, give more protection than the more form fitting sleek cases you see on the thin and light laptops.
A laptop only has to be 4 pounds to qualify as an ultra light from most companies. Powerbooks are between 4.6 pounds to 6.9 pounds, so they're not light either. 4.6 pounds is for the 12" model btw, which is an insane weight for a 12" screen. Most other 12" screen notebooks are in the 2.5 to 4 pound range, depending on configuration. (note, I'm using the specs of the G4 powered laptops, the new intel ones may be lighter, though if they're still using metal cases I doubt it)
And I'm sure the 17" powerbook would hit 8 pounds if equipped with a beefy gpu and a heatsink to cool it.
Ha, the ibooks are horrible too! I thought they were lighter, and while they are less powerful than the powerbooks, the 12.1" ibook is a whopping 4.9 pounds, and the 14.1" model is 5.9 pounds! Maybe the powerbook specs are listed without the battery while ibook are listed with?
Originally posted by: Fox5
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: FreshPrince
ok, don't get sucked into the 2-3x faster and the 4-5x faster for these new Intel inside MACs...
1. everyone knew PPC G5's sucked, but Jobs managed to convince people that it was faster...which is why those intel benches are faster
2. like Jobs said, those are just industry standard benchmarks, they say nothing about real world performance.
3. just because you got a new, faster CPU, doesn't mean the rest of your parts are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster. If those new MACs have hard drives that are 2-3x faster and 4-5x faster, then yes, they have the faster computers in the world now. But fact to the matter is, those MACs are just catching up with the rest of the world now. So, they are not faster than PCs, they're just as fast...don't let Jobs market bs cloud your judgement.
I'm glad they're finally using real parts in their computers, but they're still way overpriced.
For the same $1,999 Dell's inspiron 9400 has a faster core Duo processor @ 1.83GHz, a larger 17" screen, more memory @ 1GB, and faster graphics card @ 256MB GeForce GO 7800. The only thing it lacks is a dvd burner, it has a DVD/cd burner combo (the dvd burner upgrade is only $75...)
So, don't get sucked into Apple's yet again, more expensive - inferior hardware
I like their OS better though
The Dell is also 8lbs. That is huge in the laptop world. It's not unusual that you get less for the money when you get a smaller laptop. Look at the 3lb Sony.
Normal laptop weight is 6 to 7 pounds, even on the models companies call "light weight". Plus, you usually don't get the aggressive pricing of Dells, and I've found their overbuilt cases, while they're little more than ugly plastic boxes, give more protection than the more form fitting sleek cases you see on the thin and light laptops.
A laptop only has to be 4 pounds to qualify as an ultra light from most companies. Powerbooks are between 4.6 pounds to 6.9 pounds, so they're not light either. 4.6 pounds is for the 12" model btw, which is an insane weight for a 12" screen. Most other 12" screen notebooks are in the 2.5 to 4 pound range, depending on configuration. (note, I'm using the specs of the G4 powered laptops, the new intel ones may be lighter, though if they're still using metal cases I doubt it)
And I'm sure the 17" powerbook would hit 8 pounds if equipped with a beefy gpu and a heatsink to cool it.
Ha, the ibooks are horrible too! I thought they were lighter, and while they are less powerful than the powerbooks, the 12.1" ibook is a whopping 4.9 pounds, and the 14.1" model is 5.9 pounds! Maybe the powerbook specs are listed without the battery while ibook are listed with?
yup, how much will the 17" macbook pro be? $2,999? That will be 50% more expensive than their "PC" counterparts, which will have the exact same hardware.
So essentially, Jobs is saying Max OSX is worth $1,000 more than XP :roll:
I'll take my "PC" please :laugh:
Jobs must think people are stupid if they're willing to shell out so much more so the same thing...
I will consider buying the macbook pro, if it's priced the same as "PCs". I Do like their OS better than XP and linux, but I won't spend 50% more just for the OSX.
uhhh.. where have you been, people are f'in retarded (that's just a general comment really).
You're paying not only for OS X, but for the look. Apple has a killer design team. Sure, people on this forum might thing it's ugly and whatnot, but to the masses, it turns many more heads than that piece of plastic dell.
But it will be interesting... w/ directly comparable specs to dell counterparts, we'll really find out of people value apple that much or not.
well...I do like the lighted keyboard...does that count?
but does that mean I'm going to pay more for the same thing? nope.
oh, the dell looks mean, but who cares what it looks like? It's just a computer. How much time do you think you will spend on: 1. working on the laptop, 2. staring at it.
exactly...it may look good, but 99.9% of the time, you'll have it open and working on something.
you're still thinking from a functional viewpoint.. that's not how apple sells. It's not "just a computer." They sell the look. The style. The name. And obviously they're doing a pretty damn good job.
Now, I'm not trying to sell you on a mac, just saying that's where they go to.
I understand they're sellings the looks, but I'm just trying to bring to light that the hardware is all the same now. Before, they can con people into thinking apple is better, but everyone is playing in the same field now. if Jobs is truely a business genius, he should sell these new intel inside Macs at a lower price than the dells, HPs, and gateways and watch the people really "switch"
yet, he's stuck in the apple should cost more mode, which is why apple will never increase their market share the way they want to...
- Apr 5, 2004
- 4,426
- 0
- 76
how ferrari sells a car is similar to how apple sells a laptop. I may be exaggerating a bit, but both companies have quite a bit of emphasis on aesthetic appeal. Why do people spend ~a million bucks on a Enzo when you can get a Veyron for a little bit more? Why do people spend a bit more on apple products? Design and some great functionality when it comes to PS and editing.
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