Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > New MacBook (Pros) are here!

New MacBook (Pros) are here! (Page 7)
Thread Tools
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 01:25 PM
 
We tried a FCP export to MOV using the two different video cards on two machines at the same time, both machines had the exact same config. The better card won by a mile. /shrug. It must be using the video card for processing the video.

Not a scientific test by any means, but interesting to see.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
azt33
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 01:36 PM
 
Does anyone know if the HDD is still user-replacable in the MB? It would be more interesting to put in a 500GB into the MB instead of getting the upgrade to 320GB through Apple itself.
MacBook Pro 15.4/ i7 2.2 / 8.0/ 750/ DL SD/ APX
iPhone 4 16GB (black)
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by azt33 View Post
Does anyone know if the HDD is still user-replacable in the MB? It would be more interesting to put in a 500GB into the MB instead of getting the upgrade to 320GB through Apple itself.
yes
~Mike
     
azt33
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 01:40 PM
 
Thanks for the fast reply! It's always good to have a reassurance before finding out the hard way
MacBook Pro 15.4/ i7 2.2 / 8.0/ 750/ DL SD/ APX
iPhone 4 16GB (black)
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
We tried a FCP export to MOV using the two different video cards on two machines at the same time, both machines had the exact same config. The better card won by a mile. /shrug. It must be using the video card for processing the video.

Not a scientific test by any means, but interesting to see.
Sorry to be a nuisance, but starman, could you please check your PMs?

I don't know if you have notification turned on or not.

Thanks!
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn View Post
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
No. Actually quite the opposite. The new chipset, faster FSB and memory make up for almost 10% 5% less CPU clock. That's actually quite good. Especially since this new combo also has a lower combined TDP. IOW similar or better performance, but more battery life.

Plus SSE4 enhancements. The new MB(P)s are using a whole lot less CPU when decoding h.264. It's quite dramatic actually - on the order of 30% vs. 70% CPU load. These are very welcome changes. And with SL and GC it's bound to get even better.
( Last edited by Simon; Oct 20, 2008 at 05:02 PM. )
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 03:06 PM
 
So I mis-read the benchmarks - whew, I was worried
~Mike
     
GSixZero
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 03:34 PM
 
Regarding the power adapters for MacBook Pro, which magsafe connector do they have? Thanks.



or


ImpulseResponse
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by GSixZero View Post
Regarding the power adapters for MacBook Pro, which magsafe connector do they have? Thanks.

This one.
     
WizOSX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 04:03 PM
 
….....................
Originally Posted by tcphoto
You tube has been filled with video of new MBP owners unboxing their machines.

Thanks. I'll check them out.
( Last edited by WizOSX; Oct 20, 2008 at 04:08 PM. Reason: omission)
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
No. Actually quite the opposite. The new chipset, faster FSB and memory make up for almost 10% less CPU clock. That's actually quite good. Especially since this new combo also has a lower combined TDP. IOW similar or better performance, but more battery life.

Plus SSE4 enhancements. The new MB(P)s are using a whole lot less CPU when decoding h.264. It's quite dramatic actually - on the order of 30% vs. 70% CPU load. These are very welcome changes. And with SL and GC it's bound to get even better.
Nitpick: 100/2000 = 5%

But yeah, the new MacBooks are pretty darn nice.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Plus SSE4 enhancements. The new MB(P)s are using a whole lot less CPU when decoding h.264. It's quite dramatic actually - on the order of 30% vs. 70% CPU load. These are very welcome changes.
This is interesting. Do you know if these enhancements represent hardware changes in the latest CPUs? Or are they perhaps just software tweaks as Apple's programmers learn how to take advantage of SSE4.1? (While not familiar with the intricate details, I thought all Penryns supported the SSE4.1 instruction set.)
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
IOW similar or better performance, but more battery life.
Too bad Apple didn't manage to deliver this improved battery life performance without reducing the capacity of the batteries in the latest series by 16% (MPB) to 18% (MB) at the same time. Given the same capacities as before, users would see a real-world benefit in actually being able to use their 'Books longer on a single charge.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Nitpick: 100/2000 = 5%.
You're absolutely right. For some reason I had 2.16 GHz in mind.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by issa View Post
This is interesting. Do you know if these enhancements represent hardware changes in the latest CPUs? Or are they perhaps just software tweaks as Apple's programmers learn how to take advantage of SSE4.1? (While not familiar with the intricate details, I thought all Penryns supported the SSE4.1 instruction set.)
It appears to be code changes to make use of the enhanced SSE. Some guy booted an older MBP off the disk of a new MBP (i.e. with the new OS build) and didn't see any improvement. So it's not some kind of code change to offload CPU calls onto the GPU. It appears to be that OS is now making use of new hardware features.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by issa View Post
Too bad Apple didn't manage to deliver this improved battery life performance without reducing the capacity of the batteries in the latest series by 16% (MPB) to 18% (MB) at the same time. Given the same capacities as before, users would see a real-world benefit in actually being able to use their 'Books longer on a single charge.
Judging by their numbers users will actually get better battery life than before. On the MB we had theoretical 6h (which equate to a max of 4-4.5h real-world wireless) vs. the new 5h wireless productivity.

We'll have to wait for more real-world benchmarks, but from what the numbers tell us the new Macs will have better battery life and run cooler.

Also, if you keep in mind that we already gained size (MBP) and lost one port (MB) I doubt anybody would have wanted Apple to make the batteries any bigger. Of course this is a trade-off and there will always be people who prefer heavier and thicker if they get more battery time. But obviously Apple chose "as good or slightly better than before" over "significantly better but heavier/bigger".
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
It appears to be code changes to make use of the enhanced SSE. Some guy booted an older MBP off the disk of a new MBP (i.e. with the new OS build) and didn't see any improvement. So it's not some kind of code change to offload CPU calls onto the GPU. It appears to be that OS is now making use of new hardware features.
How 'bout that. Thanks, Simon.

I guess there's still the possibility that the new chip set is able to do something to offload calls to the GPU that the Northbridge "team" couldn't handle. No?

Or -- from the wishful thinking department -- the possibility that the OS build on the disk for the new MBP simply doesn't yet support the calls on other Penryn-equipped hardware. This almost makes me look forward to seeing OS X 10.5.6.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 08:32 PM
 
Just played with the MacBook Pro in the Apple Store for about 30 minutes. I checked all around for build quality, and played with Pages, QuarkExpress, iCal, Safari...

I want to like it, but I don't, not yet anyway. The gloss screen is horrid. I work with text all day... it was just as distracting after 30 minutes of use as it was during the first few seconds of use. Sure, I might be able to get used to it. I kept seeing myself in the screen, and the background. You can focus your eyes on what is on the screen, which does help blank out the background images, but the reflections, mostly from light, are still there.

The keyboard is ok, but slippery. The bezel around the edge is as I expected: sharp and uncomfortable. The trackpad is nice and so is the multi-touch. The build quality is great also. But the screen might be a dealbreaker.

Think about it. I looked at the LG flat panel TV right next to it and there really was little difference between it and the MBP's screen: both were full of reflections. All Apple has given us is a mini flat panel TV display that we will have to try and get used to staring at, close up, all day long.
     
jonnyz1245
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 08:51 PM
 
I went from a glossy MBP to a matte MBP in the last two revisions. I am now on my third having just bought the new updated MBP. I am back to gloomy and having had it for 3 days now, I don't mind the glossy at all. Seems to be just fine on the eyes so fa. I love the new trackpad and the keyboard to me is a big improvement over the last MBP.
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Judging by their numbers users will actually get better battery life than before. On the MB we had theoretical 6h (which equate to a max of 4-4.5h real-world wireless) vs. the new 5h wireless productivity.

We'll have to wait for more real-world benchmarks, but from what the numbers tell us the new Macs will have better battery life and run cooler.
Yes. I look forward to seeing real-world benchmarks. My suspicion is that we won't see any real gains in run-time per battery charge. But I'd be happy if we do.

I think Apple quoted 5h wireless productivity for the Feb '08 MBP, using their updated calculating scheme. If so, we are possibly looking a similar run times for it and the new model. Mind you, the claim for the new model is calculated when running from the 9400M integrated graphics. I'll be more interested in seeing how the two generations do when both are running the discrete GPU.

As for the MB. My 2.2GHz BlackBook gives pretty good run-time battery performance. I'd be happy to see the new model out-perform it, though. That's one expectation of new generations, after all.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Also, if you keep in mind that we already gained size (MBP) and lost one port (MB) I doubt anybody would have wanted Apple to make the batteries any bigger. Of course this is a trade-off and there will always be people who prefer heavier and thicker if they get more battery time. But obviously Apple chose "as good or slightly better than before" over "significantly better but heavier/bigger".
This is part of where Apple failed to take the other grand I would have shelled out last week had they wowed me. If they can't say, "Hey, it runs way longer on a single charge. Amazing, isn't it?!", then I'd like them to be able to claim that it's noticeably lighter, smaller, or something along those lines. But as it plays out, the reduced battery capacity on the new MBP can't be spun as saving any weight, size or any of the things this consumer wants to be lured by or might perceive as a benefit. Too bad.

They did manage to shave a few grams off the MB. And that's great. I can picture the possibility of owning a next-revision or Nehalem MB down the road. Of course, we know the real secret behind the weight savings this round was in dropping the weighty FW port that so many are lamenting over.
( Last edited by issa; Oct 20, 2008 at 09:08 PM. )
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 09:46 PM
 
I used a new top line 15.4" MBP this weekend for live editing this weekend. Ran very nicely. I was using Modul8 and FCP.
     
MartiNZ
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 11:06 PM
 
I saw a new MB in person today, and I have to say I was less impressed by that than by the online pics - I guess that can easily be how it works.

The screen didn't seem as bright as my Feb '08 MBP's, even though it is LED-backlit as well now, and I thought the glass would only increase that brightness. The glass covering would indeed be really nice for cleaning the screen though; currently I get a lot of dust and stuff build up under the rim on the MBP. The glossy is still really nice though; no complaints there.

I feel that the new trackpad is best used just like the old one. It didn't actually feel much bigger - are the MB and MBP trackpads the same size now? And is the Air's still bigger? Clicking feels pretty much like it always did, but being one to always turn off tap to click, I still got quite a few unintentional clicks in the time I spent checking out the MB.

The magnetic latch is ... different. I never tried a plastic MB one, but this just doesn't feel like you're closing the machine. Opening offers a nice amount of resistance from the magnet but is then a very smooth swing, and on the MB it is a one-handed operation; the old MBP at least requires two hands due to the weight balance.

The keyboard didn't feel as nice as the current Apple wireless one, and I would like to test the new MBP one after claims that they are slightly different. It was the low-end, non-backlit keyboard model that I saw, and I was annoyed to discover that despite those F-keys not being assigned to backlit brightness, you can't assign them to other useful functions as they are still not real F-keys pressed on their own. There is probably a way to do this really, I recall some cunning text file being talked about.

I thought that I was really going to be impressed by the unibody look and feel, but I think I need more convincing at this point. I was also a bit surprised about how small the MB is, I guess after 8 months of using a 15"er . But again instead of being impressed by this, I found it a bit odd. I'll be keeping a look out for a new MBP, but currently much less into the idea of downsizing to the new MB than I was when I saw it online.
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by issa View Post
Or -- from the wishful thinking department -- the possibility that the OS build on the disk for the new MBP simply doesn't yet support the calls on other Penryn-equipped hardware. This almost makes me look forward to seeing OS X 10.5.6.
It's starting to look like this hardware acceleration might be coming to a wider variety of 'Books in the future. And this might even include those that predate the Penryn CPU:
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/18/...pros-and-airs/

These changes could be based on improvements planned for Snow Leopard. ...
If true, ... we would hope that Apple would incorporate support for older Macs that have the necessary hardware in a future software update.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES View Post
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.
Interesting.
Because I do not think that I ill need the extra video power, I think that I am going to get the macbook and then upgrade to the 17inch when they update it.
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
     
MikeD
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Naperville, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 10:34 AM
 
Does anyone know if the GPU's help in any way with h.264 encoding? I saw that it helps with decoding.

Anyway, thought I'd ask here rather than starting a new thread.
2009 MacMini 2.0 C2D 4GB (3,1) - Needs update!
11" MBA (2010 1.6GHz C2D)
iPhone 4 / iPad!
Hooked on Apple since the IIGS
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
Does anyone know if the GPU's help in any way with h.264 encoding? I saw that it helps with decoding.
The problem is that the previous MBP's 8600M GT already had h.264 encoding acceleration like the 9400M. But when people booted a previous MBP off the disk of a new MBP they didn't see the improvement. So it appears the decoding load decrease on the new MB(P)s has actually to do with new features and not just new support for previously already available features.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 11:35 AM
 
Some more infomation for those worried about the reduced capacity of the new MB battery.

• the new 2.4 GHz CPU has a 4W lower TDP than the previous 2.1 GHz CPU; it's 10W lower than the previous 2.4 GHz T8300
• the new 9400M G chipset has a 15% lower TDP than the previous Crestline/X3100 combo
• the LED backlit screen will use less power than the previous CCFL screen

I see no reason to worry. I'm expecting real-world battery life to be about the same.
     
MikeD
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Naperville, IL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
The problem is that the previous MBP's 8600M GT already had h.264 encoding acceleration like the 9400M. But when people booted a previous MBP off the disk of a new MBP they didn't see the improvement. So it appears the decoding load decrease on the new MB(P)s has actually to do with new features and not just new support for previously already available features.
Oh so the old chips had encoding 'power' and assisted in this task. (I come from an original Macbook so I'm thinking it was all pure processor power).

So the added benefit in terms of H.264 for the new graphics chips will be in the decoding (viewing) of movie files and the encoding aspect will most likely remain the about the same as in the past (except for the slight boost in processor power and other speed enhancements such as DDR3 mem etc right)?
2009 MacMini 2.0 C2D 4GB (3,1) - Needs update!
11" MBA (2010 1.6GHz C2D)
iPhone 4 / iPad!
Hooked on Apple since the IIGS
     
fisherKing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 12:52 PM
 
spent a half hour today at apple soho playing with the new MacBook. let me just say, I don't like glossy screens, and am angry about the removal of FireWire.
the mb is ok; was clicking on the trackpad BEFORE I even realized it; 2 and 4-finger swiping is cool (altho the 1st mb I played with was finicky).

asked the salesman about FireWire; he suggested a FireWire-to-USB adapter (!!!); later, on a second macbook, another salesperson admitted they're hearing a lot of complaints; he said he thought it was a terrible misstep & hoped it was fixed in a future revision.

I need a new laptop & decided to go for a previous-gen mbp; too big for my tastes, but FW and a matte screen.
disappointing.
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 12:59 PM
 
in the same boat as ya ^
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Kodachrome_Project
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 02:07 PM
 
Over 24 hours now on my 2.8 Ghz / 320 / 7,200.

CS4, NX2, Silverfast Ai, Lightroom and iView Media pro are running great, quite fast, respectfully. The screen is a welcome change from the dead looking and easy to "fog-out" matte one, good riddance. I have to make far less adjustments to my position near windows and lights to get rid of a small specular reflection versus the more global ones that appear on the matte screens.

Battery life with the faster GPU seems about the same, have not powered down to the other one yet, I will when I fly to a commercial shoot out of the country next week.

Coming from a MBP 2.0, this is exactly the upgrade I was waiting for.
     
starman
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kodachrome_Project View Post
Over 24 hours now on my 2.8 Ghz / 320 / 7,200.

CS4, NX2, Silverfast Ai, Lightroom and iView Media pro are running great, quite fast, respectfully. The screen is a welcome change from the dead looking and easy to "fog-out" matte one, good riddance. I have to make far less adjustments to my position near windows and lights to get rid of a small specular reflection versus the more global ones that appear on the matte screens.
In all the years I had laptops, never once did I have to do that with a matte screen. With my glossy screen I constantly had to adjust the screen.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Super Mario
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
In all the years I had laptops, never once did I have to do that with a matte screen. With my glossy screen I constantly had to adjust the screen.
He's just being a salesman so we all tell him what a great purchase he made and he can feel smug about it. Specular shine on a matte screen more than a reflective glass screen, huh? Epic fail that guy.
( Last edited by Super Mario; Jan 10, 2018 at 02:21 PM. )
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kodachrome_Project View Post
Over 24 hours now on my 2.8 Ghz / 320 / 7,200.
The screen is a welcome change from the dead looking and easy to "fog-out" matte one, good riddance.
how bout the idea that some of us out here prefer the matte, i don't get how you can say it looks dead. you're comparing a 1.5-2yr old LCD - matte screen to a brand new LED - glossy screen, take the glossy vs. matte debate out of that comparison and see what you'll come up with (hint. 1.5-2yr old LCD vs a brand new LED).

stop making such gross comments about matte screens, my current mbp is not dead looking nor is it easy to 'fog out' so stop with your 'my screen is better than screens that aren't my screen' comments. both matte and glossy LED screens are way better than their previous LCD brethren and each have their strengths but neither is inferior to the other, can we all agree to that atleast.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
In all the years I had laptops, never once did I have to do that with a matte screen. With my glossy screen I constantly had to adjust the screen.
I'm needing to make adjustments to my matte screen. While I'm not saying that glossy > matte I do find myself calibrating it, or constantly adjusting the brightness.
~Mike
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by iREZ View Post
stop making such gross comments about matte screens
Is it any different then people making gross comments on the glossy screen?
~Mike
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 05:05 PM
 
um...facts are facts, and the only thing i've mentioned is that glossy screens show reflections and i for one am not a fan of reflections, but to claim that a matte screen is 'dead looking' and easily 'fog's out' is utterly ridiculous. thats like me saying...using a glossy screen is like staring into the sun, im so glad i got matte because using a glossy screen is only for the vain that like to see themselves using the machine. i dare you to find one post about a matte screen looking dead as oppose to glossy screen when comparing the same machine just different type screens.

forgot to answer your question Maflynn, no i don't find it any different with people who make gross comments about glossy screens as long as the comments in question don't state facts that glossy screen users seem to always defend. glossy screens reflect, case closed.

( Last edited by iREZ; Oct 21, 2008 at 06:05 PM. )
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 08:45 PM
 
Checked the AluMacBook out today.

1) It is very noticeably lighter than the WhiteBook. I think this is the number plus of the new AluMacBook.

2) The frame is very nice. As everyone says, it seems very well built. The edges are sharp but I'd have to use it a while before I judge whether it matters or not.

3) Use of the touchpad as a standard touchpad and button is 2nd nature. Very easy to use. I don't miss the button at all. The click of the touchpad is just as substantial. I also like the 4-finger Exposé and app switching. I'd prefer to have a Dashboard setting though. I could not find one for 4-finger gestures.

4) The loss of Firewire was very conspicuous to me, but I'm sure very few others in the store cared.

P.S. While I waited in line, I surfed on the iMac. I continue to dislike that keyboard. It feels like typing on a laptop, and I much prefer the nice click and travel that one gets from older desktop keyboards.
     
fisherKing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 09:10 PM
 
yikes. after a lot of reflection (that COULD be a 'glossy screen' joke), i think i am going for the new 13" macbook. will give my one firewire-only drive to my GF, and continue to use my usb audio interface (i was planning on getting an apogee duet, a firewire device; sad to let go of that...for now...).

the "small, light" part of my needs wins out, so i lose FW, and accept the glossy screen.

as i've said earlier, apple has removed "choice" for it's consumers, and any purchase is a compromise, the price we pay to be macusers, with apple our one source of hardware...
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 09:25 PM
 
MacWorld has posted the results of their first battery tests. Their methodology doesn't represent real-world usage of computers as computers. But, the results do at least show how the various 'Books performed when simply playing back a DVD movie that has been ripped to the hard disk drive, and with the monitor set to full brightness.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1362...okbattery.html

In a nutshell, the 2.16GHz white Macbook last about 16% longer than its new 2.4GHz unibody sibling, and bested the 2.0GHz unibody MacBook by about 14%.

The 2.4GHz MacPro from February bested the new 2.53GHz by 28% when both were running from their discrete GPU, and by 13% when the unibody MacBook Pro was running from the 9400M integrated graphic subsystem.

Compared to the new 2.4GHz configuration, the early-2008 2.4 GHz came out with about 22% longer run-time when both are using the discrete GPU, and about 12% when the unibody 2.4GHz is using its integrated 9400M.

Again, this is just one test run using the configurations that macWorld chose. It'll be interesting to see other results as they came in from various sources.
( Last edited by issa; Oct 21, 2008 at 09:39 PM. )
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 09:58 PM
 
I finally had a chance to drop by Apple Store Ginza yesterday and spend a few minutes fiddling with the new unibody MB and MBP.

Bottom line: I'm sure that everybody who buys one will be happy with their purchase.

A few off-the-cuff impressions now...
  • Fit and finish of both models is exceptional; a nice evolution of the body design.
  • The black bezel wasn't as distracting or annoying as I thought it might be.
  • The trackpad works well. Again, a nice evolution of the concept.
  • Operation is fast and smooth, as expected. Granted, there weren't a whole lot of apps on the machines that would let me perform heavier tasks that are familiar to my normal workflow. As such, I was mostly toodling around doing basic stuff.
  • The color on the MBP display is really good. Best I've seen on an Apple notebook to date.
  • The color on the MB was maybe a bit better than in the past. But it's still washed out and less accurate than I would like to see on that puppy.
  • The MBP didn't feel heavy or overly large.
  • The MB definitely feels slim and compact.
  • What surprised me most is how much the reflection on the glass bothered me. I really thought that glossy wouldn't be a big deal to me. But, at least in the lighting of the store, it was both distracting and bothersome. And that's regardless of how I angled the monitor or moved the machine to avoid the reflections. The best thing about it is that I know if I were to use one, I'd never forget to trim my nose hairs before a meeting again.
     
MartiNZ
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by fisherKing View Post
the "small, light" part of my needs wins out, so i lose FW, and accept the glossy screen.

as i've said earlier, apple has removed "choice" for it's consumers, and any purchase is a compromise, the price we pay to be macusers, with apple our one source of hardware...
Yeah the small, light factor is a big pull. After seeing the new MB in person I was pretty sure I'd just stay with the Feb '08 MBP, but it sure would be nice to be back to that small form factor, not too far from my old 12" PB, and in fact lighter.

With the 15" machine I'm hesitant to get it out to work on outside / on the bus/train/plane, whatever. I sat with it on my lap on the couch last night, and that's not really comfortable either; damn Apple for coming out with small, light and capable machines to keep me thinking !
     
issa
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Akiba alleyway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by MartiNZ View Post
Yeah the small, light factor is a big pull.
Indeed! As the technology for portable computing advances, and as age and travel fatigue bear down on this user over the years, it's hard to imagine that I used to lug the 3+kg PowerBooks of the nineties around with me everywhere I went, (plus spare batteries, peripherals, cables, etc.)

Originally Posted by MartiNZ View Post
With the 15" machine I'm hesitant to get it out to work on outside / on the bus/train/plane, whatever. I sat with it on my lap on the couch last night, and that's not really comfortable either;
I'm not sure that the MacBook is the answer here; at least not for me. In search of precisely the solution you refer to, I bought a MacBook in January. But I find it just about as cumbersome as the 15" MBP to use on the plane, bus, park bench, etc., at the expense of display quality and resolution. Ready to throw in the towel on that one, I've been doing pushups in preparation to start carrying around a(n early-2008) 15" MBP again.

What I'm hoping to see is a future evolution of the MacBook Air that does way with the huge bezel around the screen. If Apple can just shave off some of the Air's peripheral bulk, and maybe get 4GB of RAM in there, then I know what my next TravelBook™ will be. That would offer MacBook-level performance less the expansion ports and optical drive, which I don't consider necessary when in transit. Alternatively, an iPhone on steroids might be all I find I need in the future while in transit or generally bopping about.
( Last edited by issa; Oct 21, 2008 at 11:38 PM. )
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 01:50 AM
 
issa:

Bang on. Tough to get over that glare, eh? Well, I ordered one nonetheless (2.4 MBP, standard config with 7200 RPM HD). I wanted the 2.53 with 512 MB VRAM, but for another $500 I just could not justify it.

This is what I want:

I agree about the Air (reduce the bezel), but why not take more elements of the Air and map it onto the MBP? All about the MBP, here is what they could do:

-Give us 1 MBP model without an optical drive (in place, increase battery size by 40%, and install an internal ac adapter). We all don't need that huge, stupid optical drive! Which is why you left it out on the Air, remember. Apple. We want battery life and portability. Then you could add a quad core and not handicap the machine with crap battery life. The optical drive has to go, period. It takes up way too much room inside. Additionally, a 3G/4G internal modem... PLEASE! I could finally not worry about wifi, and ugly express cards sticking out.

Apple, are you listening?
     
Kodachrome_Project
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:06 AM
 
This is odd, why are you taking this personal? Odd..

I am just giving my experience with it, which has not a thing to do with your opinion. I have been using Mac's since Photoshop 2.0, I have seen a lot of screens. The screen in my soon to be sold MacBook Pro 2.0 is actually less than a year old, the original one had a bad dust problem that Apple took care of, so it is plenty bright, not dead.

By dead looking I am talking about reflections occuring in a more global fashion on a matte screen. Since the surface material is porous, it has more micro-sized angles that catch global reflections, harder to get rid of in an overall sense. It knocks out the contrast in the viewing in some cases. I am really loving the new screen, that is how I feel anyway.

But this is my experience and we all have different needs. Not every pro has the same opinion as you. So it is both incorrect and inaccurate to say that "Pros prefer matte screens".

No need to get in a fuss, it might do all of you some good to spend less time posting on the geek site and to talk to people outside of this place in the world around you to get an honest opinion.

As for me, the computer is working great, will keep me in business while out on the road shooting a film project for the next week....but that is why I use top notch computers, so I can get what I need done on them then get off of it and have a life...

Have fun with what ever screen you use...

Originally Posted by iREZ View Post
how bout the idea that some of us out here prefer the matte, i don't get how you can say it looks dead. you're comparing a 1.5-2yr old LCD - matte screen to a brand new LED - glossy screen, take the glossy vs. matte debate out of that comparison and see what you'll come up with (hint. 1.5-2yr old LCD vs a brand new LED).

stop making such gross comments about matte screens, my current mbp is not dead looking nor is it easy to 'fog out' so stop with your 'my screen is better than screens that aren't my screen' comments. both matte and glossy LED screens are way better than their previous LCD brethren and each have their strengths but neither is inferior to the other, can we all agree to that atleast.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
So the added benefit in terms of H.264 for the new graphics chips will be in the decoding (viewing) of movie files and the encoding aspect will most likely remain the about the same as in the past (except for the slight boost in processor power and other speed enhancements such as DDR3 mem etc right)?
We're can't yet be sure of that. And with things like SL and GC on the horizon these things are also likely to change.

But it's a weird thing. The previous GPU already had h.264 decoding accelerating so if Apple just modified some code in the latest shipping Leopard build we should have seen improvements also when booting the previous MBP off the new MBP system. We didn't. So from what I can tell there are three options here

• it's not about the GPU; the SSE4.1 enhancements on the new CPU are a likely candidate
• the GPU decoding acceleration has been changed and Apple only supports the latest version
• Apple has decided to restrict these improvements to the new models for marketing reasons (sounds unlikely though)
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by fisherKing View Post
asked the salesman about FireWire; he suggested a FireWire-to-USB adapter (!!!);
At least you knew right then and there that was obviously incompetent. As a Mac salesperson he should know there is no such reliable solution for the Mac.

later, on a second macbook, another salesperson admitted they're hearing a lot of complaints; he said he thought it was a terrible misstep & hoped it was fixed in a future revision.
He shouldn't hold his breath though. And actually, he shouldn't be getting his customers' hopes up either.

Once Apple cuts off something they rarely go back. Actually, I can't remember the last time time they reversed on such a decision at all.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Super Mario View Post
He's just being a salesman so we all tell him what a great purchase he made and he can feel smug about it. Specular shine on a matte screen more than a reflective glass screen, huh? Epic fail that guy.
That is an incredibly rude post. You show nothing but contempt for another member who has merely given his own opinion.

Observe how others here replied to that post. Notice the difference?

Making a point is one thing. But belittling a person because his views differ from yours is unacceptable. And of course it removes any credibility you might have had. Consider yourself reported.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by issa View Post
What I'm hoping to see is a future evolution of the MacBook Air that does way with the huge bezel around the screen. If Apple can just shave off some of the Air's peripheral bulk, and maybe get 4GB of RAM in there, then I know what my next TravelBook™ will be. That would offer MacBook-level performance less the expansion ports and optical drive, which I don't consider necessary when in transit.
I agree 100%.

The MBA IMHO would have a lot more appeal if Apple trimmed everything away that goes beyond either the KB or the screen. If they found some way of reducing that bezel to a minimum it would make the MBA actually compact rather than "just" thin. And it could reduce the weight even further.

I don't think Apple should do a netbook. But I do think a more compact MBA (which offers a good resolution and decent performance) with just the bare minimum in terms of ports is a very attractive Apple product.
     
MartiNZ
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2008, 03:47 AM
 
Yes and maybe they could just perhaps swing it at a slightly lower price? The Air starts just below the Pro and its myriad limitations make it pretty hard to justify. However, I think it would have been interesting if they had offered the old 64GB SSD, now that its price has presumably come down quite a bit - the only thing I've seen written about the speeds suggests that the SSD is more comparable to a 7200RPM HD rather than the 4200RPM that the MBA otherwise ships with. But adding another $1000 for SSD ... wow - that's what it is in $NZ anyway .

But yeah, I'd happily do without an optical drive and some of the ports if a bit more of the 'power' could be kept. The new model is a lot more convincing than the first though; the 9400 GPU and the Penryn with 6MB L2 should make quite a difference.

I agree about making it just that bit more compact as well. It will be interesting to see what we're complaining about a year or so from now .
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:40 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,