[Conscript]

Well besides trying to decide between the 15" and 17" (both with 256mb GT), i have two random questions about the MBP.

1) Anyone know if the Apple Stores carry the "glossy" lcd versions of the MBP, or just matte? I know i've read alot of people on these boards that dislike the glossy screens, specifically for the imac, but i really prefer them. I ask because there's nothing else i'd really customize on the apple site to custom order, and would be nice if i could pick one up today (I'm gonna go anyway just to check, but figured someone might know ahead of time, just to get me in the purchasing mood while i'm driving there )

2) While I said I'm good with more or less the stock version, that's not entirely true....I was planning on upgrading the HD right out of the box. Anyone have any experience with the Hitachi 200gb 7200rpm drive? I'm going to be using this for EVERYTHING, so want to get the biggest fastest drive i can in there. Think 200gb should do it. But on an aside...is the 160gb 7200rpm choice also a hitachi if anyone has checked? (the one with 16mb of cache).


Ok, I know I said two questions...but back to the 15 vs 17 inch dilemma. So here's my thoughts. I'm going to be using this laptop for grad school and normal email/web browsing. But when home, i do plan on gaming a bit. (I'm going to dual boot win xp/os X, bascially OS X for everything except games). Besides the cost (and who doesn't want to save $300?), I'm actually leaning towards the 15" not so much for portability (though it's nice, I'm a big guy, and an extra pound or two isn't going to break my back), but because i figure the graphics card will perform better at ta lower resolution and be able to handle games a bit better. Mind you, i'm mainly interested in mmo's for the most part, maybe a little WoW, EQ...and eventually early next year Warhammer. On the other hand, I'd love the extra screen real estate for everything at 1650x1050 (1920x1200 is definitely out), and it's the resolution i'm used to...but i'm just worried a mid range card like the 8600GT might run into some issues down the road. Open to thoughts. Thanks in advance.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Conscript 

1) Anyone know if the Apple Stores carry the "glossy" lcd versions of the MBP, or just matte? I know i've read alot of people on these boards that dislike the glossy screens, specifically for the imac, but i really prefer them. I ask because there's nothing else i'd really customize on the apple site to custom order, and would be nice if i could pick one up today (I'm gonna go anyway just to check, but figured someone might know ahead of time, just to get me in the purchasing mood while i'm driving there )

I have seen stores that have the glossy version. Call in advance and ask to be sure.

2) While I said I'm good with more or less the stock version, that's not entirely true....I was planning on upgrading the HD right out of the box. Anyone have any experience with the Hitachi 200gb 7200rpm drive? I'm going to be using this for EVERYTHING, so want to get the biggest fastest drive i can in there. Think 200gb should do it. But on an aside...is the 160gb 7200rpm choice also a hitachi if anyone has checked? (the one with 16mb of cache).

If you want the fastest drive you should get the Hitachi Travelstar 7K200 (200GB 7200rpm). If OTOH you want the biggest drive, get the Western Digital Scorpio WD2500BEVS (250GB 5400rpm).
More info and benchmarks here.

Ok, I know I said two questions...but back to the 15 vs 17 inch dilemma. So here's my thoughts. I'm going to be using this laptop for grad school and normal email/web browsing. But when home, i do plan on gaming a bit. (I'm going to dual boot win xp/os X, bascially OS X for everything except games). Besides the cost (and who doesn't want to save $300?), I'm actually leaning towards the 15" not so much for portability (though it's nice, I'm a big guy, and an extra pound or two isn't going to break my back), but because i figure the graphics card will perform better at ta lower resolution and be able to handle games a bit better. Mind you, i'm mainly interested in mmo's for the most part, maybe a little WoW, EQ...and eventually early next year Warhammer. On the other hand, I'd love the extra screen real estate for everything at 1650x1050 (1920x1200 is definitely out), and it's the resolution i'm used to...but i'm just worried a mid range card like the 8600GT might run into some issues down the road. Open to thoughts. Thanks in advance.

You can also play games at lower resolutions on the 17" if you're worried about max frame rate. Keep in mind that the 17" MBP also has a slightly faster GPU (the 15" MBP's is underclocked a bit). Personally, I prefer the 15" because I find the 17" simply too big, but if you don't mind the extra size/weight and you want maximum GPU performance the 17" is the way to go.

[mduell]

1. Don't remember.

2. Buy the 250GB 5400RPM drive instead of the 200/7200. The bulk transfer rate isn't all that different due to the increased areal density, and the performance/free space curve strongly favors having more free space. Don't worry about hard drive cache, it's not that big of a deal except in some synthetic benchmarks.

15" vs 17": 15"! The 17" is just too big to be portable IMO, and you're not getting any better hardware (CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD/etc) for the extra $300. For gaming at home go buy a 20-22" LCD for $200-250. The 8600M GT is fine for today's games at 1680x1050, but it will choke on games coming out before the end of the year at that resolution (and reasonable quality settings).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

...and you're not getting any better hardware (CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD/etc) for the extra $300.

Actually you are. On paper they are identical, but we know the 15" has an underclocked GPU while the 17" doesn't. It's not a huge difference, but it's indisputably there.

15" MBP 2.4GHz - 17" MBP 2.4GHz
GeForce 8600M - GeForce 8600M

Core Clock idle: 169MHz - 169MHz
Core Clock normal: 375MHz - 470MHz (+25%)
Core Clock max: 470MHz - 520MHz (+11%)
Memory Clock idle: 100MHz - 100MHz
Memory Clock normal: 502MHz - 650MHz (+29%)
Memory Clock max: 635MHz - 650MHz

And it shows:

[mduell]

10% increase on core and 2% increase on memory clockrate isn't really worth mentioning in my book. Why cloud the issue with listing 'normal' clockrates when the GPU is going to run at 'max' speed whenever you're doing something demanding?

Actually, the 10% framerate difference is probably within the margin of error for a benchmark like that (run once on a single machine).

[Simon]

The point remains: the 15" has an underclocked GPU and hence the 17" delivers maximum GPU performance. Plain and simple.

Any idiot can read the official specs. But when people come here they expect more information. Telling them that the 15" MBP's GPU is underclocked and the 17" isn't is exactly that kind of information. If the OP now wants to get a 17" for that reason is an entirely different question and actually only his decision to make.

[Conscript]

well I do appreciate the info, both of ya. I guess I'm any indiot cause I didn't know they throttled the card on the 15", but i'm sure it's a relatively easy fix regardless with rivatuner. I think I am leaning toward the 15" book now. Though I will say you piqued my interest again on the HD. 250gb at 5400rpm does kinda seem more attractive now for the extra space, less heat/noise/vibration... hmmm

[Conscript]

hey one last question that should be an easy one...4gb of ram. Does OS X use it all? I assume no since it's a 32 bit system like win xp and 32-bit vista, but figured i'd throw it out there.

Anyway, defintely purchasing a mpb, but decided to wait until next month for leopard, mainly because i will be occasionally using bootcamp and figured i'd be better off waiting for a final release version. Thanks again for all yoru help.

[Simon]

Of course OS X can use 4 GB!

The question is if your apps will use that much RAM. If you're using just Safari, Mail, and Office you won't. OTOH if you multitask heavily and you use professional apps, you will easily make use of 4 GB RAM.

[Conscript]

i guess i wasn't clear. With windows, the system will only show roughly 3gb of ram, and i thought that was due to the limitations of the 32-bit architecture and the max memory that it could address. And I thought OS X was a 32-bit OS. Maybe my thinking is just too windows orientated, but just wanted to get clarification. Now will I need it? No, probably not everyday, but thats besides the point... memory is so cheap right now it wouldn't hurt to take advantage before the next shortage (thru a retailer like newegg...not buying from apple)

[Simon]

The ~3 GB limitation you heard of is due to a limitation of Intel's Calistoga chipset (that was used among others on the previous MBP). The current MBP however uses the Crestline chipset which doesn't have that limitation. Again: OS X can and will use up the entire 4 GB RAM. Also, it's dangerous to call OS X 32 bit. Today at work I just compiled some 64 bit code with a simple compiler flag - that was on a C2D MBP running 10.4.10.

[mduell]

FYI, 32-bit Windows is limited to 3.5GB (not the ~3.1-.2GB many chipsets are limited to) due to a different addressing issue.

[tinkered]

FYI, Seagate announced their 250 GB, 5400 rpm, 2.5" drive today. Their dive uses perpendicular rather than the horizontal of the WD drive. In the past perpendicular drives have seen a speed bump compared to their horizontal kin of equal spindle speed and data capacity, due to the reduced pin movement and increased sector density on the platters.

[Conscript]

Originally Posted by mduell 

FYI, 32-bit Windows is limited to 3.5GB (not the ~3.1-.2GB many chipsets are limited to) due to a different addressing issue.

hmm, i'm showing 3.25gb of ram right now with xp sp2?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Conscript 

hmm, i'm showing 3.25gb of ram right now with xp sp2?

Chipset limitation.

[Conscript]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Chipset limitation.

It's a p35 though? It's basically one of the most recently released chipsets there is.

And if it's a chipset limitation, why would why in the mbp's case would OS X be able to take full advantage of 4gb when xp on the same chipset cannot?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Conscript 

It's a p35 though? It's basically one of the most recently released chipsets there is.

And if it's a chipset limitation, why would why in the mbp's case would OS X be able to take full advantage of 4gb when xp on the same chipset cannot?

Weird. Windows supports 3.5GB RAM and p35 supports 8GB.

The current MBP's chipset supports 4GB, 32-bit OSX support 4GB, and 32-bit Windows supports 3.5GB (assuming you're not using PAE, which supports like 64GB).

[2004G4]

IMO, one of the main advantages of the 17 is the ability to upgrade to the 1920x1200 pixel display.