Is the Macbook Pro REALLY a Pro machine?

Hello all,

I'm currently looking to get a powerful 17" laptop as a desktop replacement.
Thought I'd check out the new Macbook Pro, but it seems only the 15" version has been updated. I've read the new 17" Macbook Pro should be out Jan time so I'm wondering if you think the specs of this will be any higher than the new 15"?

I'm asking as I really don't think much to the 15" Specs.
Very ave gfx card, where are the quadro options?
Still no quad core cpus.
No Bluray
Max 4GB of ram?!
No matte screen option?

Sorry but how is this a Pro machine?

I can understand different people want different things but I was really hoping you could kit out these Pro machines with a better spec than they currently have.

I guess my main question is.. does anyone expect the 17" Macbook pro Unibody to have a higher spec when it comes out? Or will we be looking at basically the same spec as the 15" one?

Regards,
Simon

 

So far, Apple has never had any real spec differences between the 15" and 17" models. I think you'd be better off with a PC if you're looking for those kinds of specs.

 

Just as with the previous generation, it will probably be the same. I have not heard any rumors concerning the exact specs, but it can't hurt to wait

 

Of course it'll have higher specs. The question is, of course, and as usual, how much higher.

 

If you're going for high specs the MBP is probably not the way to go. Thin, sleek chassis designs like the MBP cannot manage the heat of things like quad core cpu's and super powerful graphics cards. Powerful hardware usually relagated to 2 inch monsters.

 

If you are really looking for a system with a Quadro for a GPU I'm not sure a Mac would suit your needs. The major difference between Quadro and FireGL and regular GPUs is really the drivers which are optimized for non-game 3D apps, typically OpenGL. While OS X uses OpenGL and Apple does write their own drivers, which seem to be very stable, if you are looking for a Quadro you probably are using specific workstation software and I don't know if the workstation software that you need is available for OS X. And if you are going to run Windows all the time you might as well get a Windows laptop.

In terms of quad cores, few laptops have quad cores because to date Intel has only really released 2 quad core mobile chips and they both are very expensive, starting at $851 for the slower one, and have a high 45W TDP which Apple has never used in their laptops and would require a pretty bulky cooling system. Apple only supports 4GB of RAM although users have found that 6GB works, but 8GB does not. Apple does use faster DDR3, although it's not a big difference since the CPU is FSB limited anyways.

In terms of things in the 17", they are typically fairly consistent with the higher-end 15" model. It'll probably ship with a 2.66GHz dual core CPU maybe 2.83GHz if it doesn't ship until later in Q1, with a 3.06GHz dual core option. The current 3.06GHz model that Intel offers is 45W TDP, but Intel is supposed to be offering a 35W TDP 3.06GHz model early next year. The GPU will almost certainly be the same as on the 15" MBP since that's always the case, still the same 512GB GDDR3, although both the memory and the core are likely higher clocked than the 15" model, since that has always been the case for previous 17" MBP. So the 9600M GT in the 17" MBP should be faster than the 15" MBP, which is already faster than many other 9600M GT's in other laptops since Apple always uses GDDR3 instead of cheaper DDR2. It'll also have a bigger HDD. But overall, not a huge difference over the high-end 15" MBP.

 

Thanks for all the info guys.
I think I'll wait until Jan and see what the deal is..
In terms of the macbook pro though for me it's a shame the gfx card doesn't have a little bit more power. Is there really no other card they could have used with more bite?
Also I have no idea why in today's market Apple would limit to only 4GB? 8GB should be the min these days.
I love the look of the macbook of course, it's a stunning machine. It's just a shame they couldn't squeeze a little more out of it.

Si

 

There is only so much you can squeeze into a less-than-1-inch-thick chassis.

 

depends on what kind of pro you are looking at, but i agree that the macbook pro is nowhere near the most powerful laptops in the market

 

i think he is after a pro-gaming laptop.

 

From what ive heard, they dont quote 8gb of ram because its pretty much unfordable right now to get a 4gb stick of ddr3, let alone two.

I heard that it was the same situation with the previous generations chipset, at the time 8gb of laptop ram was too expensive so they didnt put it in the specs.

As of right now, old gen MBP (SR and up) and the current MBP's (not sure about MB) support 6gb of ram. It seems like the build of OSX on the laptops hits the roof there and becomes unstable when you get 8gb. I can link you to a thread of macrumors if you want more discussion, or you can google it.

But if its anything like the previous gen, it will work with >4gb of ram, its just not listed. And past 6gb, we'll have to wait for an updated version of leopard, or maybe snow leopard.

 

wait, does OS X use the 4GB? or is it like windows that requires 64-bit?

 

"There is only so much you can squeeze into a less-than-1-inch-thick chassis."

Well then they should release a 1.5" version, call it the Macbook Pro + and put Pro level componets in it

"I think he's after a pro gaming laptop"

I'm after a laptop mainly for 3D animation, but that can also cut it with the best of them when it comes to gaming. I know there's only so much you can fit into a case as nice as the macbook pro but is there really that much difference in the size of gfx cards? The cpu sockets should remain the same really, and memory- while expensive for DDR3 4GB roms should still be an option. I guess that's my point.. If apple put up an 8GB, 3.06Ghz extreme, high end gfx card version of the macbook pro I'm sure a lot of people would buy it.

Regards,
Simon

 

i agree.. but i believe apple is targeting the ordinary consumer base, such as students and etc.. as it seems to be more profitable..

 

Many people bring this up, and it wont happen anytime soon. Plus theres the problem of cooling, in the size that apple has. And apple computers are already fairly expensive, can you imagine how much it would cost if they made one? They already charge an arm and a leg for the ram, 8gb would just be insane. The 17" already costs 3k, can you imagine what the "Pro+" would cost? Sure I guess it would be an option, but theyd probably spend more money in R&D, then they would gain from selling it.

They have the Mac Pro's for real professionals, who need computers, and they do what they do really really well.

Maybe at some point in the future they will make a "high end" laptop, but seeing as they just released the new family of macbooks, and its not in it now, i dont see it happening anytime soon.

If you CANT live with the current spec MBP, then get a PC. Itll be bigger, but faster and wont run osx. If you really need the better card, then get a pc, as your work will suffer with a mac.

I dunno, sorry if im coming off harshly, but theres so many users coming into the forums, saying they want a better mac, and apple should do this and do that. Apple obviously isnt going to do it.

If you REALLY want a mac, and want it for 3d and gaming, wait till they release the new 17" and youll get the best possible mac laptop that they have to offer.

[/end rant]

Yea they really are making a lot of money. They also trick a lot of students into buying the MBP because they think that theyll need it for school, instead of buying a macbook. And by trick, I just mean people think theyll need the mbp, over a mb to do final cut editing, and photoshop, but they can easily do it on a macbook. But thats I dont mean it as a bad thing necessarily.

 

Its amazing what ads can do to students.

A guy said my $3K Acer 8930 was a POS and I should have got a MBP, which in his words, never crash, are 8x faster than all PCs when gaming (he really did) and is the only laptop with Centrino 2. Also, the 17in MBP starts at $4.5K in the land of AUS.

 

Don't worry. I get that all the time in my field. And then when I produce results, they think I secretly did it on a Mac. :lol:

 

With a quad core CPU and a quadro graphics card I don't think he's after gaming.

And I agree with the other comments. If the OP is looking for those specs he's better of with a PC.

 

OS X is technically a 32-bit OS since the kernel is 32-bit. Yet it has full support for running 64-bit applications (non-GUI in Tiger, and GUI in Leopard) with additional registers, larger address space, and all the other benefits all in a single unified OS. Through 36-bit PAE, OS X since 10.3 Panther can theoretically handle up to 64GB of RAM and in fact the Mac Pro officially supports 32GB of RAM, the last Power Mac G5 officially supported 16GB of RAM, and even the early Power Mac G5 supported 8GB of RAM in 10.3 Panther. The problem with 4GB+ RAM support in non-Mac Pro models is not OS X, but something specific either to the chipset or the EFI used.

Snow Leopard will bring a full 64-bit kernel and a theoretical 16TB RAM support for those who feel 64GB just isn't enough. But it won't likely magically add 4GB+ RAM support for models that don't currently support it.

 

completely BS

 

I don't know where this guy's figures come from but they are certainly unrealistic and aren't from Apple. For one thing, Apple has never used or even mentioned Centrino 2 or Centrino. Centrino requires an Intel CPU, Intel chipset and Intel Wireless Card. Apple has never used Intel wireless cards and so never qualified or supported the Centrino brand. Now Apple doesn't even use an Intel chipset since the IGP is too slow. The only thing Intel in the notebook is the CPU.

 

If Sager can do it, why can't Apple? Q6600, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, 9800M GT, all for under $3000, the same price as the MBP, but way more powerful.

 

Because then their Macbook would have to be thicker to compensate for the heat. And Mac wants to sell themselves on the fact they have a sleek streamlined look. If they do bring out a real performance laptop, they'd have to call it the Ibulk.

 

Because Apple and I'm sure most Apple users have zero interest in a 1.8" thick laptop that weighs 8.35lbs. In comparison the 17" MBP is almost half as thick at 1" and more than 25% lighter at 6.6lbs. I'm not sure what the battery life in using a 95W TDP desktop Q6600 is compared to the 35W TDP processors that Apple uses, but it has got to be quite a bit less. Going from 4-5 hours of battery life in the MBP to even 2 hours would be unacceptable to Apple's customer base.

Apple's laptops are intended to be the light, thin, with long battery life, ie. very portable. And by and large, the MBP is the lightest, thinnest, and longest battery life in the 15.4" and 17" product segments. Admittedly, targeting this means sacrifices in performance and price has to be made. But there are people who would pay for greater portability, even if it seems harder to justify just looking at raw specs and prices.

The fact is the MBP is not meant to be a pro-gaming laptop and frankly Apple doesn't have much interest in that market. Neither is the MBP meant for the drafting workstation market like AutoCAD users or things that require Quadro or FireGL GPUs. The MBP's intended "Professional" market is the creative content market as in web designers, photo editing, video editing, etc.

EDIT: And the other thing is that desktop processors are also more sensitive to temperatures. The Q6600 is only rated up to 71C while modern mobile processors like what Apple uses can operate at temperatures up to 105C while older mobile processors are rated at 100C. Either that means an even larger cooling unit or higher failure rates.

 

Is he serious, or no?

 

Personally, I would say the 17" Macbook Pro is not a desktop replacement machine. When you say you want a powerful DTR, my guess is your looking for something with beefy graphics and a hefty cooling system.

MBP != gaming machine

The MBP is marketed at Apple consumers who want a light laptop w/ a large screen, mid-range performance (more flexible), and Apple's classic sleek look.

 

I would say that the 17", and even the 15" is a pretty decent desktop replacement. Maybe theres some specifics that I'm missing, but I dunno, it can do pretty much everything that you can get done on a desktop.

Personally, with my 2.2 mbp, I havn't touched my tower for more then 10min since I opened the box more then a year ago.

I'd say for the average user, and even some power users it should be fine to replace their desktop.

 

Well, most of the users that come in here and throw out the DTR word, they are most likely thinking of a Sager or Alienware DTR. A laptop with beefy graphics and cpu options (and subsequently beefy weight), etc...

I guess it depends on the user and the way they use their computer. I used to own a Sager 5760...I would consider that a DTR...MBP not so much.

 

Well after a lot of research I think I'm going to go for the Dell M6400.
It's still quite a sexy thin machine while packing a Quad Core CPU, Up to 16GB of ram. 1TB Hard disk and a quadro 3700 gfx which is about double the speed of the mac.

It really is a shame the there isn't a higher end Mac out there as I do love so much about them.

Regards,
Simon

 

Whoa, amazing choice there. I wasn't going to recommend a Dell Precision because you sounded absolutely locked into OS X, but the M6400 or the M4400 even holds Extreme Quad-cores, up to 16GB DDR3 RAM (8GB DDR2 for M4400) and workstation graphics. M6400 is about 1.4", 17" glass LCD (I'd get the RGBLED Backlit Display option if I were you), But then again, you might not be happy with the OS...

 

you can always install linux. its close enough to OSX, sort of.

not really.

but windows is fine and you need to use it for some animation programs anyway. 3dsmax is windows only.

 

If you're really dying for OS X or wanna just try it, there's always OSx86.