Apple Introduces new 17-inch MacBook Pro

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/?sr=hotnews

 

built-in battery, no Numpad, matte screen costs 50$ extra... at a base price of 2.7k. no thanks

 

Yeah a built in 8hr battery that shouldn't go bad for 5 years, what a drag, did you really expect a numpad? And as far as matte displays go, don't even get me started ^_^

I am extremely thrilled about the battery situation, hopefully they can incorporate it into all the notebooks down the road.

 

it is 2.8k but sill,I like it except the price part

 

Hear me out guys. I was at first very against this built in battery idea. Because they are essentially creating a disposeable laptop.

But seeing how its 40% larger lasts 1000 charge cycles. And lasts 7 to 8 hours I am all for it.

Because if you compare a standard DELL laptop Lithium polymer battery, You might get 2 or 3 years of good use. And then have to spend $200 on a new one.

With Apple you can wait 4 or 5 years and get much better use, And in 4 or 5 years send it in for a Battery replacement to Apple.

Now Apple has yet to say how much they charge cost wise to give you a new Battery.

However. I say NO THANKS to this new 17 MBP for 2 reasons.

2 weeks ago I bought a new DELL 17 inch 1737 for less than half the base price of a standard 17 MBP.

with similar Specs and a batter screen 17 RGB LED display which reproduces better colors. And a better contrast ratio. Full size keyboard with Num Pad. And a Bluray drive which the 17 MBP lacks

Or for equal price of a 17 MBP I can build a Gaming DELL Alienware m17 with double or tripple the graphics and CPU capability of this new 17 MBP.

 

really?

true,but how much does AW weight?and I doubt that it will have same battery...and same screen!

 

Well, the processor is 2.93 GHz instead of 2.8 GHz. I'm disappointed Apple decided with the 2.93 GHz dual core instead of the 2.0 GHz quad core (Q9000) released by Intel less than a week ago.

It also comes with 8GB of RAM, but still the same 9600M GT. If only it came with a 9700M GTS instead of a 9600M GT.

 

I would imagine Apple will start using Quad Core CPUs much longer down the line. The benefit for most users is going to be extremely minimal, and how is overall performance with a 2.93 DualCore compared to a 2.0 QuadCore? I say wait for slightly higher clock speeds.

And it definitely doesn't come with 8gb of RAM standard, 4gb RAM sticks are still incredibly expensive.

 

Well it's nice and light for a 17". But if I bought a 17" I doubt I would carry it around very much, if at all, so I'd opt for something with better graphics.

 

well,some like big screens...and want them to be mobile...f.e. this weights ~ the same as HP ELITEBOOK w8530.

 

Plus its a Pro laptop with the same graphics card as the 15 units.

and no built in 3G? which my 1737 has. No Bluray drive for $2799 lets call its $2,800 for basically a 15 MBP with a larger screen.

with Apple's logic You have to buy the $30 3G dock for your $200 iPhone with its $70 data plan in order to connect your $2800 dollar laptop to 3G... duh!

(where as my 1737 has it built right in)


No 3G data card, which is weird because they have room, Plus look at the keyboard they saved money by re-using the keyboard from the 15 MBP.


and I can't understand paying an Extra $50 for a matte screen an option which should be free.

It may possibly have a PVA screen which could account for the absurd price, But that has not been confirmed yet and is only speculation.


The entire design and layout looks awkward

http://www.engadget.com/photos/macbook-pro-17-inch-first-hands-on/1260939/

Such space around the sides and palm rest to reach a tiny keyboard, Should prove a pain to use.



Battery wise nicely done, a great feature, but everything else can't be taken seriously.

 

If Intel made a mobile quad core with a 35W TDP then Apple would use it.

 

Comparing the 17" MBP against anything else (including the 15" MBP) is apples to oranges for one simple fact: the new 17" screens kicks a$$.

 

9600GT. Weak...

 

Well, the 17" MBP has always used the same GPU as the 15" MBP probably to keep the supply chain simple. You couldn't really expect anything else.

 

The only thing the worries me is the non-removable battery. This might be precedent and spill over to the 15 inchers and Macbooks in the future.

 

Could we get the dimensions/weight of your 1737 for comparison purposes?

 

and build quality too? creaky plastic? i'll pass.

 

we have to wait for reviews to make final judgments ...

 

I like it, specially the battery life and matte option. I was thinking about the $2500 mbp but didn't like the high gloss, so for $300 more I get better battery life, better processor, screen, etc. The only thing that worries me a little is size. For me, the 15.4" mbp was perfect.

 

Yeah, but the resolution on the 15" is weak.

 

^some say that it is perfect for 15"

 

I had the previous gen 17" 2.6ghz led backlit 1920x1200 and it made me squint a lot which gave me headaches.

Also I remember that I couldnt comfortably sit down on a desk at a respectable distance and always had to lean closer to see the screen.

But if you dont like using your notebook on your desk at a comfortable distance, the only way to really enjoy the 17" hi res screen is to use it on your lap or just lean in close most of the time to use it. But for me I like to sit back on a nice comfy chair on the desk at a good distance.

 

Apple says it will cost $179 to replace the battery. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Its expensive but thats once every 4-5 years, so its not too bad.

 

Thats Pretty Darn excellent consider DELL wants $189 for a 9 Cell Lithium polymer battery.

Plus there shipping


Maybe theres some way I can DIY a casing and use it for any Laptop that is IF Apple will sell you a battery for the 17 MBP if you don't already own a 17MBP

 

That's not expensive when you compare the fact that you won't be getting a battery cheaper then $150.

The $179 also includes installation by Apple.

But if Apple can do these battery's for $179 why are we not seeing more of them?

 

I don't understand why people were expecting a COMPLETELY new laptop. Everyone was expecting it when the new MacBook line came out. The 17" was always just a bigger 15" model with a few added things here or there. And the price was ALWAYS in that ball park range. I don't understand why people are making such a fuss about it. Honestly, were expecting MacBook Extreme 17" Quad-core, 8 gig memory, great quality screen. Oh wait... you get that with the Pro... except for the quad-core. Quit complaining, cause unless you wanted a 5 grand laptop, your not going to get quad-core. Apple makes simple to use, convenient products. You don't need quad-core on the go, for the most part. Save A LOT of money and get it in a desktop.

 

Indeed. That was one thing I didn't like about my mbp. My dad still has this old toshiba laptop, 15.4 @ 1280x800, it looks so ugly, I can picture every single pixel. 1920x1200 should be great on a 17", I tried a Sony Z recently, 13.3 @ 1600x900 and it was perfect.

I guess I will have to wait for the reviews to start coming in, to see if it is actually over 7 hours of battery life, because that is the only thing that would make me pick the 17" version over the 15.4".

 

Hello all,

With the 17" now supporting 8GB of ram do you expect Vista 64Bit to be fully supported? I know there are some driver issues with it at the moment but with 8GB they can't expect you to use Vista 32Bit can they?

Regards,
Simon

 

well the same goes for 4gb doesn't it?

 

I think even if you don't see 7+ hrs of normal use, if the batter can really survive for 5 years that is truly incredible. But when it comes down to it, 7-8hrs would be enough battery life for many people to not have to charge their computer more than once a day, which is amazing in a smaller form factor machine (many which often have a huge ugly protruding batter), it is phenomenal in a 17" machine. All the other manufacturers should be looking around confused after this one.

All the people complaining about the lack of QuadCore would probably never make use of it any way, sometimes the internet is very bad for people.

 

Not really...

With 4GB you'll still use most of it in 32Bit 3.5GB roughly.

8GB you'd be losing 4.5GB of ram usage. That's insane.

Regards,
Simon

 

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/01/01/intel-launched-low-cost-quad-core-mobile-processor-q9000/

Q9000 = $348. Apple charges $300 to upgrade from the 2.66 GHz to the 2.93 GHz, so I don't see why the Q9000 can't be an option. Heat isn't an issue, the TDP is only 45W, compared to 35W of the 2.66 GHz. At most it will use up 1 hour of battery life.

 

Ok people, please for the love of God, stop comparing this incredibly thin and light machine to your Dell or Alienware monsters. I don't care. I am not going to lug around 10lb, and I don't have room for a 2" thick laptop in my bag. You are not impressing me with that 2 hour battery life either. These laptops are as useful to me as a sharp stick in the eye. Apple does not make a so-called desktop replacement laptop. They chose to stay out of this market.

Compare this thing to something in its own weight, like a 15" Dell. Then we're talking, then we can compare. Dell and others actually do have pretty decent offerings in that category. But nothing like this of course.

Anyway, I am buying it - it's exactly what I was waiting for. I need a big screen, I need all the processing power and RAM I can get, but most of all I need to be able to carry this with me every day and use it all day on battery. I guess this product just so happens to match my requirements 1:1. I never thought I'd say this, but it's perfect.

 

I'd think it's the battery life. They spent all this time and effort getting the best battery life ever for a Mac laptop. If they then said "hey, we have a quad core that lasts 10% longer but has a non-replaceable battery" it would just be so much less impressive. The quad core laptops from other manufacturers all have terrible battery life. They are meant to be used as desktop replacements, and plugged in most of the time. Lenovo W700 or something like that.

Alternatively, maybe a 2GHz quad is just not very competitive with a 2.93Ghz dual core processor for most tasks. If your software manages to use all cores - and most software doesn't - you end up with ~6GHz total vs 8. Single core apps will run much faster on the Core Duo. Add it all up and the Core Duo might be faster on average. I haven't followed processor benchmarks in a while so I might be off, but it would be my gut feeling.

 

Good point, and as I already mentioned, the people complaining about the lack of QuadCore would likely not even be able to make use of it anyway. I love all the people out there that tend to complain and nit pick on every possible small detail no matter how exciting and innovative a new release is. It is impossible to satisfy this type of person, I am glad Apple realized this about 20 years ago, it is a shame all of these other people can't catch on that no computer company is going to custom make a machine to meet their exact and unrealistic and unintelligent requirements.

Glad to hear the new machine will fit your needs, it is also PERFECt in nearly every possible way for my needs as well. An even better brighter screen, new updated keyboard, trackpad, sturdier design, double the battery life (with little worry of replacing the battery for the life of the machine), think about this, you can get Apple care for 3 years, if anything happens with the battery in 3 YEARS, it should be covered for a quick and most likely free replacement. I would assume the HDD is quite easy to upgrade, most likely just a matter of removing the 10 screws or whatever on the bottom of the machine, as well as 8gb of RAM down the road.

It improves upon every aspect of my current machine, plus it is the same price. Complain all you want you freaking nerds, you wouldn't know a nice computer when you saw one. ^_^

 

This is my only real concern. 1920x on a 17" is a bit of a stretch. I was looking at the HD display in the store when I bought my SR MBP and found it to be too small to read comfortably.

That said, most apps where you'd want to read text, you can zoom in. cmd-+ in Safari, Preview and so on. I can also set the font size bigger in my development environments. And all icons on the Mac already scale if you want them to. In the end, I think 99% of stuff you are likely to read can be adjusted to larger size.

 

this is definitely true, I use my 17" MBP next to a 20" Cinema Display with 1680x1050 resolution, and the difference is quite noticeable, but of course it is, it wasn't unexpected. That said it is not really a major issue to read the display from a normal desk distance if your eyes are within normal spec, or you have decent correction.

And the biggest point, is that most apps are completely scalable, one of the last major normal use Mac apps is iTunes, as well as Finder, which will likely move to the Cocoa framework with Snow Leopard, making them perfectly scalable.

Another reason to really start using Firefox as well, as it can scale entire webpages not just the text, so there is no messed up formatting, just zooming in. You can also always zoom in your entire few of the OS as well. I have used one for 1.5yrs, and it was simple to adjust from a 1440x900 17" display, not to mention being a major improvement. It is worth it to have the full 1920, watch a 1080p Apple movie or full HD movie and tell me otherwise.

 

Exactly my thinking: If the battery lives up to Apple's promises, wonderful. If not, AppleCare

This is catering to those who want maximum performance and maximum mobility. For that its pretty much unrivaled.

 

I am amazed the weight is actually less with 2 gpu's, and a larger battery, probably a major part of the non removable battery. And the funniest thing is, non-removable means, remove 8-10screws and pull off large aluminum panel in the worst case scenario.

This computer is literally half the weight and size of machines with a similar size screen and specs. And there isn't another machine with comparable specs really.

 

The only question is Matte or not Matte.

Just found that even 3rd party 8GB DDR3-1066 Ram is close to Apple's $1200 price tag - ouch. That's a bit too rich for me, I am going to buy it with 4GB and then upgrade in a year or so when the prices have hopefully dropped.

 

Yeah 8GB is still pretty much out of the question for anyone with a brain, it will drop very quickly in 6months-1year.

I highly highly recommend the standard display, the clarity and convenience of cleaning and protection that the glass panel offers is definitely worth it. I will say it and say it, even for photo professionals, a matte display is not an important aspect, especially for a notebook, even if you fully calibrate a matte display as well as create full profiles for all of your printers, you still won't get an exact translation. Doing so is quite expensive and time consuming as well. And besides the standard, "its got to darn many refractions! I can see myself in that darned thang!", which is blown way out of proportion, there is no other reason to go with matte.

 

"Yeah 8GB is still pretty much out of the question for anyone with a brain"

What a silly thing to say? Anyone with a brain would know that some users have required 8GB for quite a while.

"And besides the standard, "its got to darn many refractions! I can see myself in that darned thang!", which is blown way out of proportion, there is no other reason to go with matte."

That is the EXACT reason I, and many others, will be going with a matte screen. Maybe you're better looking than I am, but I have no desire to see myself when working thank you.

Regards,
Simon

 

uhh im guessing youre bein sarcastic? not all that obvious if you are.

 

I'm not being sarcastic at all.
Not all users buy macbook pro's to open firefox web pages and play mp3's in itunes.

Some of us use them as mobile edit / 3D animation workstations, try opening a massive scene in Maya and rendering it using 4Gb.

Regards,
Simon

 

non user replaceable battery?

yikes....

 

^answer the truth-how many spare batteries do you have?and how many time you laptop's battery SUDDENLY died on you?

 

http://store.fastmac.com/product_info.php?cPath=10_2_52&products_id=406 for blu-ray people

 

I have to say other wise. I felt like watching 1080p movies on a portable laptop especially on a TN panel still didnt feel right.

I guess its nice to have the extra resolution and space of the screen when your on the go and edit hd movies or professional photography, but I would rather watch movies on a dedicated 8 bit 23"-30" screen or a good hdtv.

I tried the firefox thing but sometimes when you try to make the text big it messes up the scaling just the same as safari but just not as much. And not to mention bumping up the text so big defeats the purpose of using the full resolution of the 17" screen and gets rather annoying hitting command and the + sign 4-5 times every time a new page loads.

One last thing is that you can make the icons big on the desktop to see well but the letters are still small at max.

I have to say though, you do get used to the screen but even so (and I wear contact lenses to get the perfect vision) it still makes you squint or get closer to the screen at times.