|
|
New MacBook (Pros) are here! (Page 6)
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Of course most of us will buy it, and there are some great improvements. But we can still be pissed for:
-crap battery life (still tough to make it through 1 DVD)
-distracting glossy screen
-no quad core processor option
-no internal 3G/4G network modem
-sharp edges (Apple, you rounded the bottom of the case, why not the top around the palm rest? My god, look at how sharp that looks, our wrists rest on that Apple, you idiots!)
http://gizmodo.com/5063492/macbook-a...ro-dual-review
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Fixing other people's machines.
Sure sure, you can remove the hard drive and put it in an enclosure, but a FireWire cable is a lot cheaper than a disk enclosure (and more likely that you'll already have one lying around). Also if the computer that needs fixing is something without a removable hard drive, like an older Mac laptop, a Mac mini, or an iMac, then you need a laptop with FireWire.
Soon, the only one that will work is going to cost $2000.
Yep.
Though to be fair, a usable S-ATA USB enclosure is what, $25?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sure, but what if someone has a machine that uses a PATA drive? What if someone has a desktop with a 3.5" drive that won't fit in your 2.5" enclosure? You'll need to buy a bunch of different enclosures, which jacks the price up considerably.
And if the machine that needs fixing is an iMac, a Mac mini, a previous-gen MBP, or any G4-based laptop, you're in for a lot more trouble getting the drive out than you would if your MacBook just had FireWire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
Sure, but what if someone has a machine that uses a PATA drive? What if someone has a desktop with a 3.5" drive that won't fit in your 2.5" enclosure? You'll need to buy a bunch of different enclosures, which jacks the price up considerably.
http://newertech.com/products/usb2_adaptv2.php
$35
Godsend, though not as elegant as FW (need a power adapter).
The rest of your quote, I'll agree--I'll never purchase a Mac without FW. Looks like refurb MBPs for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by scottiB
Looks like refurb MBPs for me.
The MBPs are no problem - they have FW800. It's the regular MBs that are disappointing in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I picked up a new MacBook Pro last night. I was also somewhat disappointed that they did not offer a matte option. However, they had both new and old MBP's sitting next to each other, and I noticed that the new display is quite a bit brighter than the old MacBook Pro display. This helps offset some of the glare concerns. The reflections are still there, but the display can overpower them in most environments.
Overall, I wish the new Pro were lighter and thinner, but it is very well built and quite fast. The battery level indicator is a nice touch, too.
Have you guys noticed that the student discount on the base model is only $100? I ended up going with the upgraded retail model because the discount on that one is $200.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd rather have a higher-res glossy display than a lower-res matte one, yet Apple is still sticking to 1440x900.
It's a bit cramped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by seanyepez
Overall, I wish the new Pro were lighter and thinner, but it is very well built and quite fast. The battery level indicator is a nice touch, too.
Agreed and in fact I felt the new MBP was a bit heavy for what I was looking for. I was surprised at the build quality, and weight of the MB, so much so I'm extremely tempted to buy that over the MB
|
~Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone else have the MB or MBP's with any thoughts and or reviews?
|
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by solofx7
Anyone else have the MB or MBP's with any thoughts and or reviews?
Got my pro on wens. One of the nicest mac's I have ever owned, the metal body is outstanding in terms of feel and quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Status:
Offline
|
|
As a photographer, I was concerned about the lack of FW400 since I own a Canon 1Ds MarkII. I have also edited my images on matte displays for the past 14 years and I only knew of those highly reflective glossy displays. After looking at the new MBP and discovering the FW400 to FW800 adapters, I decided to go with the newer model. I have yet to connect the camera and test it out but I'm confident that it will be an upgrade from my old Powerbook 1.33. I also realized that as I approach middle age that I am not an old dog yet and can learn something new...
www.tcphoto.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
Got my pro on wens. One of the nicest mac's I have ever owned, the metal body is outstanding in terms of feel and quality.
which pro did you get?
hmm... i have more questions, but they are escaping me at the moment since i am sick...
why not the regular macbook?
i am trying to justify the money since i have a iMac at home, for the pro that is.
the laptop would probably see light duty, but lots of travel.
i was also thinking of saving a bit of money, getting the better macbook, and then upgrading to the 17inch when it comes out, just because i normally like to have the "godzilla" of computers so they last longer in theory...
|
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
I keep going back and forth on the MB vs. MBP debate. Ultimately the GPU is making me lean towards the MBP, but the size and weight of the MB is really tempting.
|
~Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Maflynn
I keep going back and forth on the MB vs. MBP debate. Ultimately the GPU is making me lean towards the MBP, but the size and weight of the MB is really tempting.
I am too, but with a machine at home i can use for gaming, i am not sure if i can justify the $600 to myself.
I am the only one that can tell me no though
|
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hear ya
When I stopped by the apple store and played with both, I really like the form factor of the MB. Very portable and very solid. I picked up the MBP and it was beefy in comparison of the MB.
|
~Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by freudling
Interesting point that. I'll be interested to see how that feels indeed. Personally I don't find the old MBP very comfortable, and the plastic lip catches arm hairs just like an all plastic Dell. Gizmodo also suggests that the new case will support one's wrists better for typing, and the suggestions around the place that the machines run cooler are pretty nice sounding in this direction as well.
Anyway, they haven't rounded the top of anything since the clamshell iBook, right? That worked with the overall design of course, but maybe something like that could come in future versions of the new form factor! It's aluminium after all, round it like a drink can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Millersville, PA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Brien
I'd rather have a higher-res glossy display than a lower-res matte one, yet Apple is still sticking to 1440x900.
It's a bit cramped.
Yeah, I've never understood why they're so conservative with notebook resolutions. They should at the least offer higher-res screens as BTO options on the 15". My guess is that it has something to do with the proportions/dimensions/viewing distance of the system to strike some form of balance.
To have a 15" MBP with a 1680x1050 screen standard with a 1920x1080 option would be amazing.
|
F = ma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by seanyepez
Overall, I wish the new Pro were lighter and thinner, but it is very well built and quite fast.
I disagree with you on the thickness. I think they're thin enough the way they are. I agree on the weight though. And I sure would like to see it become less wide and deep. The bezel IMHO is too big. And I really have trouble getting over the fact they're bigger than the 15" MBPs they're replacing.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
I think they're thin enough the way they are.
Yeah. For a full-featured notebook, I was already satisfied with the 1.02" thickness of the previous generation. The 0.95" thickness of the new MBP is cool; but I don't feel it needs to get any thinner until real breakthroughs are made in battery technology (capacity vs. size, etc.), miniaturized ports and such. For now, the MacBook Air offers a solution for those who need their notebooks to fit in a manilla envelope.
Originally Posted by Simon
I agree on the weight though.
The weight increase is a true pity, even if it is only 40 grams. I find that weight in my bag matters more and more as I age and grow weary of carting a load. Here's looking forward to the day that an MBP can weigh as little as the MacBook Air.
Originally Posted by Simon
And I sure would like to see it become less wide and deep. ... And I really have trouble getting over the fact they're bigger than the 15" MBPs they're replacing.
Not to mention that the previous MBP had already increased the dimensions (marginally) for width and depth over the 15" PowerBook G4.
In addition to being wider, deeper and heavier, the new MBP also decreases battery capacity by more than 16%, (60Wh –> 50Wh). Regardless of the gains Apple has made in reducing the power consumption of the new chipset, I expect folks won't get as much run-time per charge out of the new MBP as the previous generation without switching to the integrated graphics. The reduced performance may not matter to a whole lot of users. But, at least until Apple comes up with a more elegant solution for the way one switches GPUs, it will be a pain in having to log-out and switch over before pulling that MagSafe cable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by issa
Not to mention that the previous MBP had already increased the dimensions (marginally) for width and depth over the 15" PowerBook G4.
The original MacBook Pro was slightly wider, but LESS deep than the PowerBook G4 that preceded it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
The original MacBook Pro was slightly wider, but LESS deep than the PowerBook G4 that preceded it.
Well, if I got the specs wrong, then I gladly stand corrected.
However, if the specs shown in MacTracker are correct, then I wasn't mistaken. MacTracker quotes the depth of the PowerBook G4 as 9.5" (241mm) and the depth of the previous MBP as 9.6" (243mm). Either way, the difference is small.
Height x Width x Depth: PowerBook G4 1.67GHz = 1.10" x 13.70" x 9.49" (5.7 lbs)
MacBook Pro (FEB '08) = 1.02" x 14.06" x 9.57" (5.4 lbs)
MacBook Pro (OCT '08) = 0.95" x 14.35" x 9.82" (5.5 lbs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by milhous
Yeah, I've never understood why they're so conservative with notebook resolutions. They should at the least offer higher-res screens as BTO options on the 15". My guess is that it has something to do with the proportions/dimensions/viewing distance of the system to strike some form of balance.
To have a 15" MBP with a 1680x1050 screen standard with a 1920x1080 option would be amazing.
The only other reason I could think would be that LED panels at that screen size/resolution weren't available, but that seems unlikely.
1920x1200 would be nice but I've seen HPs with it and they're almost unusable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by solofx7
which pro did you get?
hmm... i have more questions, but they are escaping me at the moment since i am sick...
why not the regular macbook?
I got the MBP low end because I have previously had and iBook 13", a Black MacBook and and on both models I found the screen resolution way way to low. If I was just surfing or emailing it was fine but I am a web designer and it was useless in photoshop or aperture. I didn't like the old model MBP because the design was so old so I vowed when they redesigned the MBP I would jump on it. I'm glad I did as it is going to replace my Dual G5 Desktop as well. Once Apple updates the 30" LCD to the new design and features I am going to plug the laptop into the screen and make it my main system. So far the MBP is much much faster than my G5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
I played with the new MacBook and MacBook Pro earlier today and they're both very nice machines. The Pro is too large for me, the MacBook was almost perfect, but I think I shall stick with my original plan of buying a MacBook Air when they're refreshed in October 2010. So long as I'm losing FireWire I figure I may as well gain a much lighter notebook. At my desk I have a 7-port USB hub and an external DVD burner, and though I hungered for it in the past, the line-in port being non-powered has meant I've only ever actually used it for playing GameCube games.
Also, in a reprise of my 2003 predictions, by then I hope it will have the following specifications:
- 3GHz Intel Quad Core Processor
- 12MB L2 cache
- 1.5GHz System Bus
- 8GB RAM
- 512GB SSD
And, in the same style as the new MacBook / MacBook Pro:
- Buttonless trackpad
- Battery-level-indicator
- Glass-covered-screen
All for the same price as the current top of the line MacBook Air, of course... Which, with the ~14% higher-education discount, is ever-so-slightly less expensive than it first seems.
(
Last edited by megasad; Oct 19, 2008 at 01:26 PM.
)
|
BayBook (13" MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 1TB HD) // BayPhone (iPhone 4, 32GB, black)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
The main thing that worries me about the air is the slow assed hard drive and low rez screen. If you are just surfing and emailing it is fine but anything else I wouldn't bet on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
The main thing that worries me about the air is the slow assed hard drive and low rez screen. If you are just surfing and emailing it is fine but anything else I wouldn't bet on.
The cheaper Air, with the 4200rpm drive, I would not want to get as it would indeed be too slow. The SSD version however, at least by 2010, would be at least as fast as a 5400rpm drive, if not faster.
As for the screen, 1280x800 is the same as on the MacBook since it launched and I've used it for many things besides "surfing and emailing". I used to use a 1024x768 display on my iBook and 1152x864 on my eMac and have never found them a problem. Obviously there's not really room for running applications side by side, but with judicious use of the app and window switchers, I've not found myself wanting more space.
Anyway, with the Air, for me, it's basically about foolishly-light combined with no moving parts. I don't need it now, I probably won't need it in two years (my May 2006 MacBook has yet to cause me any consternation with regards its speed), but it would be fun, you know?
|
BayBook (13" MacBook Pro, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 1TB HD) // BayPhone (iPhone 4, 32GB, black)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: St Paul, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
I also had a chance to play around with the new MacBook and MacBook Pro at an Apple Store today. Both look great. The trackpad is fine; I started using it without problem before I even remembered that it doesn't have a button anymore. The finger gestures make using a laptop a much greater joy. And I am personally a fan of the glossy screens. Colors are much more vibrant and blacks much richer (both in an accurate way).
The MacBook has a great weight and is plenty peppy, but the lack of Firewire and the noticeably low-quality screen as noted by gizmodo is a dealbreaker. the 15" MacBook Pro was surprisingly heavy; it doesn't seem like there should be that much more weight to it compared to the MacBook. It was also noticeably front-heavy, which I didn't care for. Anyhow, the 24" LED Display was also out to play with, and it looked great. One of those with a MacBook Pro would make for a great little workstation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would really like to access my firewire drive with my new macbook, but have no Firewire 800 to Firewire 400 adapter (9/6 Pin adapter). The apple stores don't have any in stock. Best Buy, Staples, Circuit City don't have them. I know I can order one and get the best deal but.... I'd really rather not wait to get it. Anyone know of stores in Los Angeles that carry this part? Apple should have anticipated the demand and stocked more in their retail stores but... I guess they didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone know anything yet about replacing the optical drive with another HDD? I heard some chatter about that potentially being possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by uuuuut
I would really like to access my firewire drive with my new macbook, but have no Firewire 800 to Firewire 400 adapter (9/6 Pin adapter). The apple stores don't have any in stock. Best Buy, Staples, Circuit City don't have them. I know I can order one and get the best deal but.... I'd really rather not wait to get it. Anyone know of stores in Los Angeles that carry this part? Apple should have anticipated the demand and stocked more in their retail stores but... I guess they didn't.
I wouldn't bother with adapters - just get a 9-pin to 6-pin FireWire cable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by CharlesS
I wouldn't bother with adapters - just get a 9-pin to 6-pin FireWire cable.
I would rather have an adapter because then I could use it with both my 4-6 pin cables and 6-6 pin cables.
If I get a 9-6 pin cable, I will also eventually need to get a 9-4 pin cable.
At this point I'll take whatever i can find though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by uuuuut
Anyone know anything yet about replacing the optical drive with another HDD? I heard some chatter about that potentially being possible.
The optical drive is now SATA. So yeah, you could remove the SuperDrive and insert a hard drive. I wonder if the USB2 ports of the MBP could power the MBA external SuperDrive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by uuuuut
Anyone know anything yet about replacing the optical drive with another HDD? I heard some chatter about that potentially being possible.
An HDD would be to thick for that area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
as pointed out in another thread, a 1.8" drive might work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
as pointed out in another thread, a 1.8" drive might work.
Aren't they PATA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status:
Offline
|
|
Still no pictures posted of someone's MacBook Pro. Simon's pic above was useful.
But no one has started a picture thread. Usually by now we have box openings, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
So according to NVIDIA the 9400M chipset will indeed support 8 GB RAM.
http://www.9to5mac.com/8GB-MacBook-NVIDIA
Yes, an 8GB system can be built using two such SODIMMs after the memory is qualified with GF 9400M.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hmm, so even if the chipset does support 8GB it’s still unknown if the computers will.
I think it’s unlikely.
|
"The road to success is dotted with the most tempting parking spaces."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, definitely. Apple could limit it in firmware. Or we could again be facing an issue like recognizable vs. addressable.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why unlikely? I don't think Apple has added a restriction, the G5s also supported more RAM than `initially supported'.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Why unlikely? I don't think Apple has added a restriction, the G5s also supported more RAM than `initially supported'.
Didn't Apple artificially limit the first generation Intels?
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
No, that was a chipset issue, Apple didn't do anything. The chipset (also of my ProBook) can only address 3 GB. Additional RAM is wasted. Otherwise I'd have installed 4 GB already.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status:
Offline
|
|
I got to look at them this weekend. First, is it me or are they both a tad heavier than their predecessors? The glare really bugs me. A lot. I realize that with notebooks you can move them wherever you want, but I had a glossy screen on a Dell laptop once and really despised it. I told the guy at the Apple store that the only thing preventing me from picking one up right then was the glossy screen (which was true).
Besides that, it's not a bad machine. Looks solid, moreso than the last models, but maybe someone will come out with some anti-glare thing. In the meantime, I'll stick with my older 15".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
The MacBook is half a pound lighter than its predecessor (2.04 kg vs. 2.27 kg) and lighter than the 12" PowerBook (2.1 kg). The ProBook is a tad heavier (2.49 kg vs 2.45 kg).
I doubt you really notice weight difference of the latter in real life.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
No, that was a chipset issue, Apple didn't do anything. The chipset (also of my ProBook) can only address 3 GB. Additional RAM is wasted. Otherwise I'd have installed 4 GB already.
They actually limited the Core Duo models to 2 gigs. Even in the case of the pre-Crestline Core 2s, the limitation to 3 gigs is slightly stricter than required by the hardware (you could support 3.2 gigs or thereabouts, and Windows does that). I've theorized before that the limitation in the Core Duo models was due to time constraints in the firmware programming - it's easier to simply reserve all addresses beginning with a binary 1 to hardware other than RAM than to try to figure out the exact amount needed.
We're not going to know if the new MBs support 8 gigs or not until someone tries it out. There are good reasons to believe that they will, but it's not certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by WizOSX
Still no pictures posted of someone's MacBook Pro. Simon's pic above was useful.
But no one has started a picture thread. Usually by now we have box openings, etc. etc.
You tube has been filled with video of new MBP owners unboxing their machines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
Conclusions
Somewhat suprisingly, processor performance is virtually unchanged in the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros; the new NVIDIA chipset and the faster DDR3 memory haven’t managed to help increase processor performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Makes me wonder if something within OSX needs to be tuned. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not but its crazy to see DDR3 memory and a faster FSB getting lower marks then the prior generation. Something's got to be amiss
|
~Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|