New MacBook Pro Supplies Constrained, Steve Jobs Says 'Not to Worry'

The prolonged wait for updated MacBook Pros continue without any major hints at when they might arrive. A report last week suggested that a shortage of Intel notebook chips could be contributing to the delay.

MacRumors has heard that the MacBook Pro supplies to retailers have abruptly become constrained, possibly suggesting that updates could be imminent.

Meanwhile, one MacRumors reader emailed Steve Jobs directly about concerns about how long he's had to wait for the new MacBook Pro updates and Apple's recent focus on the iPad. He wrote "I recognise the need for secrecy etc but I am really losing heart in the lack of vision for the MBP and Mac Pros. Not expecting a response but as someone who has personally switched dozens of people onto the mac way this is a sad email for me to compose."

As he's been occasionally known to do, Steve Jobs reportedly responded with a short reply that simply said "Not to worry."

source: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/22/macbook-pro-supplies-constrained-steve-jobs-says-not-to-worry/

ohhh steveeeeeee, not to worry guys!

 

That's just Steve's way of saying, "Tuesday".

Everyone knows he can't say it in clearspeak, it has to be coded so Balmer will be caught off guard.

 

*cough* which "Tuesday"

 

I am also waiting for the upcoming refresh. Every single 'rumor' so far as been proven to be false. The new macbooks probably won't be coming out until after the sales of the iPad have died down. More than likely in late April or May possibly June. By Steve Jobs saying "not to worry" isn't saying anyting.

 

chip delay? lol. yea, right. meanwhile, none of the other manufacturers seem to be having little trouble with their supplies.

try again. looks more like macrumors is trying to save face after calling "the big day" wrong several times in the last 3 months.

 

Actually there you not quite correct.
Consumer models yes, BUT

the W510, 8540w,, 8440w, M4500 are all delayed. most think it is due to the GPUs though.

 

if you go to another threads you will see the same shouting regarding laptop updates (Dell Latitude, Lenovo T410s, etc). I think there is cpu/chipset production problems.

So guys be experimental rabbits to test new products

 

Tier 1 builders dont seem to be having any shortage, a few models may be short because of the GPU's as mentioned but when the tier 2 and small OEM's have chips and even the retail and consumer market arent seeing a huge shortage ... im just not buying the chip shortage bit. ( I can easily call a couple of my main distributors for chips and HAVE. I custom assemble less than 10 Laptops a month normally so im no big OEM thats for darn sure )

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/18184/1/

Many figure Dell and Lenovo refreshes may be slow on some business calss and high end models due to a major redesign to incorperate some of the new tech available, which is not unheard of as many times a business/high end model is updated AFTER the consumer models.


UPDATE:

Okay did a little more reading and there may be starting to be a shortage due to a couple of the big tier 1's buying up a bunch of stock due to " very favorable sales ", but come on dont tell me Apple waited until a couple of weeks ago to actually place their chip orders from their big buddy Intel.

example http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/18129/1/

 

I personally think that apple took all this time because they need to test the chips on most different conditions available. After all, they need to cram these chips, in a 1" thick chassis, with the new generations gpu's (i'm referring to the availability of the new nvidia optimus)

 

Any possibility that Intel is doing an "Apple Special" variant of their chips?

 

apple, in most cases, was not good in such sort thing like testing. practically all laptops had initial problems (heating, hinge, again heating, motherboard defect, Nvidia GPU, etc). unibody was the best from this point of view, but still had initial children deceases it is more or less normal and often happens with others brands. I would not overprice apple as a sort of special company who never fails

 

I really doubt it unless it may be a custom BGA package like they did with the CULV chips for the Air's.

a special die for one manufacturer would be prohibitively expensive to that manufacturer

 

I had read that Apple had an issue with Nehalem chips with on-die graphics and that they would have preferred Nehalem dual-core chips without on-die graphics so that they could use other solutions. I read about these issues on an Intel forum.

 

I remember that as well i think Jobs said it himself in an interview that he was not thrilled about the idea on of die graphics.

 

Plenty of other manufacturers are running discrete GPU's w/ Nehalem proc's. T410/510 Thinkpads are available w/ discrete GPU's today and only the slim T410s or X201/s are limited to the on die GPU.

I would think the limiting factor is access to a suitable discrete GPU vs. any issues disabling the integrated GPU on Nehalem.

 

"Not to worry"
translation
We wont let you down.. we will update them, sometime... but the current ones are so fantastic and selling great, you shouldn't worry about all the future updates. We offer what you should buy, and you should buy it now. We worry about technology for you, you just buy what we give you to buy.

 

I do think that their current models are fine. I have the previous generation model but it does everything that I need it to with ease. We're getting to the point where low-end and mid-range processors meet the needs of 90% of computer users. Having a high-end processor is nice but not necessary.

My new iMac has a Core 2 Duo and it runs fine. I was thinking of going with the Core i5 but I don't have a reason to get one.

 

For the price of them, a core 2 is unacceptable, even if 90% of the people would be fine with a core 2, 90% of people also buy cheaper computers less than $1000. When comparable computers are offering 20-30% faster technology, better warranties, and better screens, its time to lower your prices or upgrade to stay competitive. A huge amount of mac supporters are being disappointed by Apple's lack of attention to the macbook line. Sure a core 2 is fast, but macbook fans have high expectations, thats why we spend $1500+ on a computer when the 90% of people buy $600-800 computers. For a lot of people in the price range, a core 2 is not enough.

 

I agree the current models are more than adequate for most users. The same applies to Windows users too.

Apple really has never had problems keeping the rich and famous happy while also addressing the not so pocket heavy segment of their audience.

It is no secret Apple introduces a new model of X or Y laptop at a pretty steep price. Each revision packs more power/upgrades and either stays the same price or experiences a mild price reduction. They repeat this process till the overall laptop is EOL'd and a brand new model appears.

Right now, the Core 2, in the technology world, is effectively EOL'd or relegated to the lower end/low power end of the spectrum and no longer represents the power class of laptops, but the Macbook Pro w/ T9900 and 9600M is still a decently powerful laptop. Couple this with the fact Apple will not bottom out their prices even in the face of a long delay for their next big thing and it flies in the face of consumers expecting either a new laptop with nehalems in them, price cuts to reflect the aging technology Apple is currently hawking or both.

I think they are having problems finding a way to cram the hot and heavy chips and GPUs in their 1" chassis. With the 620M reported to spike to 65w under load, that is right in the same class as the 820/920 quad core chips. Remember back when people were howling because Apple had G5 desktops but still languished with G4 laptops? The G5 was just too hot and heavy to make it into a laptop. Apple faces a somewhat similar dilemma now IMHO.

I don't see Apple offering the 620M. I do see them sticking with the 500 and 400 class chips which hit a much better ~50w under load. So then you take the 400 and 500 class chips and compare their benchmarks against the T9900.

If Apple sticks with Nvidia, you end up with ~28w parts (250M), which is still a 5w increase. If they go with ATI and their 5830 series, you end up with a much healthier 24w.

One thing I always like about the Macbooks is not only their slim, thin design but also the very small power adapter. People sometimes forget it isn't just the size of the laptop but the power adapter. If you've seen some of the modern notebooks, even notebooks packing i5's and 4000/5000 class ATI chips are packing 120-130w adapters now.

To put this in perspective, The 1727's I've tested with a 920XM pulling 65W under load and a 250M (28w), are pulling 140-150w under load. This is good, quality genetic hardware with no extra bells and whistles to pull extra power. The included 120w adapter gets VERY hot under load. If Apple goes with an i3/i5, you shave 15w and a 5830 shaves another 4w. So you reduce that to ~121w-131w under load. That is a lot of heat to dissipate nevermind the expected battery life the Apple faithful have come to expect. The 120w adapter is, of course, much larger than the nifty Apple Macbook adapter.

So what is Apple to do? If they come to market with a bulkier laptop and a larger power adapter that runs hot and heavy with dismal battery life, the Apple masses will scream bloody murder. If they wait and test and try to fit the current technology into their expected ergonomics and battery life, the masses then howl that Apple is taking too long and they will, "go elsewhere!!!" (We all know the bulk of them won't.....).

 

I think it was just "we will update them...eventually."

 

There are a lot of PCs offering i5/i7s and higher end gpus in similar profiles as macbooks, Vaios and HP envys are examples and those sport 4.5 to 6 hours of battery life. There's no reason why apple can't, I suspect they just want to milk all the $$ they can out of their remaining stock of core 2s, while also waiting not to interfere with iPad media coverage.

And yes a core 2 is fine for a lot of people, a lot of people are fine with $500 laptops, but some people want to pay more for more features, i5/i7 is one of the luxury features that should be on a $2000 luxury laptop.

 

electrosoft,

Are you sure the 620m is drawing 65W consistently or was that a defect? The Thinkpad T410 w/ integrated graphics only has a 65W adapter and running a full set of subsystems w/ the proc running 65W wouldn't go all that well. I have seen the 125W power brick on Dell desktop quadcore powered workstation laptops and that would certainly relegate Apple's into the pile of uncool work machines w/ 4lb AC adapters.

The new Sony Z isn't exactly a behemoth and part of its width is based on the battery bump out and it's got an 620m in it as well.

 

no.

not unless they're going to drop the price of the current models 40%+ to compete with other Core 2 Duo / 9600M GT systems.

 

faulty logic is faulty.

by that logic, everyone should be happy with 150HP car engines in cars with $40,000 price tags because...you know...it's adequate.

No, you pay for performance and build quality in the computing world. and simply put, Core 2 Duo + 4GB Ram + 300GB HDD + 9600M GT = < $1000 on the open market in 2010.

As it should be.

It should be a baseline expectation for consumers of Macs or any other computer that the hardware not fall 1.5 generations behind while charging premium-end current generation prices.

 

The Envy doesn't cut it, sorry. Having used one, the battery life is nowhere near Apple standards, the heat is toasty, the PSU is bigger, and it is almost as but not quite as compact as the Macbook Pro and I don't see as 17" flagship model.

The Envy is all the reason Apple needs to get it right for what they want.

 

And that is why car owners drive their cars for 5-10 even 15 years (sometimes more, heh), and also why even older cars are used. They cover the basic functionality drivers need. To be able to get from point A to point B within the speed limits.

That's a terrible example, btw.

 

Are those other Core 2 Duo systems Apple licensed hardware that run licensed OSX? The faulty logic is comparing the base components therein with other non Apple laptops that use the same components and expecting some type of parity in pricing.

Apple makes Apple laptops.

Those other makers make non Apple laptops.

It is irrelevant if 90% of the core technology is what shows up in non apple laptops. Apple has no direct competition for their licensed hardware.

You can pick and choose amongst the components used and use that as some base argument as to why they should be cheaper, but that is not how it works. You can keep banging your head against the wall all you want but an Apple laptop is not a non-Apple laptop.

Of course you can run OSX illegally on a non-apple laptop and a lot of this becomes moot, but assuming compliance with EULAs and respecting the makers of their software, Apple laptops are not non-Apple laptops.

Now if Apple comes out with a brand new i7 laptop with a 5830 and a new LED screen and all types of new bells and whistles and still prices the Core 2 models the same, well, then, that is Apple's folly.

 

They do the job but they aren't new and that's not what drives sales which is what helps Apple's top line. A 4 yr old Macbook doesn't help Apple's revenue unless it's constantly breaking and if that's the case...it likely does more damage than good. If Honda built a brand new version of the 1977 Civic, called it the Civic Classic, and tried to list it for sale at $5,000 they still couldn't move more than a couple to people w/ too much money and an odd sense of value.

People on these forums for the most part aren't looking for that well used and bargain basement notebook. Given the technology lifecycle, a 2002 iBook looks like a 70's beater complete w/ lime green paint and bias ply tires. Admittedly a lot of people who look for computers don't go much beyond the price tag or the look but an awful lot of those people are also just fine w/ 2003 era Pentium 4 machines (like my parents).

 

They are adequate, but it doesn't mean its fairly priced. Sure Apple has no competition for its licensed software. But an different OS isn't worth the $600-$1000 premium. Apple is ripping off customers, sadly, most of them are too ignorant to realize it.

 

You seemed to be forgetting that whether it is a Apple Laptop or not it is simply a LABEL.
Technically as of now a Macbook is just like a PC, a Computer that runs Intel IA-32 Instruction Set.
IMO things are only worth paying and totally different, if there are differences technically not simply a different external casing.
To base your argument on a superficial difference is not convincing enough.
In addition OS X uses BSD Userland and Code meaning technically they didn't do the OS from scratch they simply sugar coat their UNIX offerings so it doesn't make up for that extra premium.
But of Course people will still pay nowadays since they are gettting richer so they have less qualms about really getting their money worth.

 

I'm not forgetting anything. I specifically address the common components. Notice where I say, "It is irrelevant if 90% of the core technology is what shows up in non apple laptops. Apple has no direct competition for their licensed hardware." I address the near identical hardware and that LABEL also includes OSX and their idea of tight integration of hardware/software and the whole Apple stores, service and support and the whole Apple "experience." I'm not here to say whether the extra greenbacks merits that, but that is what they are offering and by their gross revenue, market share and growth it seems to be pretty valid.


Stop thinking in terms of, "Well Apple uses X and non-Apple laptops also use X, therefore finished Apple product Y made with X and finished non-Apple product Z made with X should have comparable prices." It's hogwash, an old argument and useless. Everyone knows the Apple laptops are internally using off the shelf parts that also show up in non-Apple laptops.

In the end, OSX is a product owned and licensed by Apple.

Who cares if they wrote OSX from scratch
Who cares if 90% of Apple laptops are made from components that show up in non-Apple laptops
Who cares if Apple suddenly signs an agreement with Dell for straight up Dell Studio laptops, slips a proprietary chip in there, loads OSX on it and charges $1500 more (with the nifty Dell logo replaced by an Apple logo).
Who cares if Steve Jobs takes millions of dollars and creates large bonfires everyday while cackling maniacally.

The point is it is their product tied to and licensed to their hardware. Either you want to use OSX legally and/or like Apple's hardware design or you don't and you then shop elsewhere.

Your only other recourse is to Hackintosh it which I'm not even against. It is a moral choice made by end users who decide to take matters into their own hands illegally to get what routinely ends up being a much more powerful laptop running OSX. But that is neither here nor there. If you want to play by the rules, you pay. If not, you don't run OSX. You run something else.

Again, Apple has no direct competition for their Apple products so to expect parity in pricing from a different market (non Apple laptops) is just bashing your head against the wall.

Apple definitely embraces the, "Software sells the hardware," mantra.

 

I am not a fan of OS X any *NIX is fine by me.
I don't care about "Apple Experience" My Linux Experience is good enough.
Free Software/Open Code.
Its is narrow minded to assume that no one should care if Apple uses run of the mil outdated components and charge at a premium and it is ok.
There are users who have open options to different OS and is simply looking to buy a Machine that runs IA-32 and Apple being a hardware seller fails at that aspect of providing decent value for money.
Your argument fails at the aspect that you assume everyone who bought a Macbook want to use OS X.
There are people who just want a machine that runs their programs and they might regret their purchase when they realised the components are not as cutting edge.
The ability to run Windows and other IA-32 OSes is a big reason why most people are willing to buy a Mac not because they want OS X.

 

Could be wrong but I thought the majority bought a Macbook for the OS X? Any good sources to prove either way as to why Macbook owners bought their machines for?

I know my family and friends have bought for OS X, though almost all of us own Windows machines as well. I am the opposite of wienter, I never really liked the other *NIX operating systems as it seemed to much work for me to enjoy it (this is just personal taste, as both of us have our right to).

 

If it wouldn't support Windows many educational institutes wouldn't even put it as a recommended workstation, at least it is the case for all my local institutes.
All the Apple Users I know of runs Windows on it in bootcamp although I don't like to put this down as it is considered personal experience.
There was even a friend of mine who asked me to install a bootleg Win7 for him.
I declined and told him to purhase a valid license because I knew such methods can be easily circumvented by WAT eventually and he will probably come running to me again.
I also know that in Microsoft Corporation they have installation guides for their own employees to use Windows on Macbooks.
Surprisingly Microsoft doesn't discourage their employees from using Macs.

 

One of the reason why some of organizations (and people) prefer to by apple books is necessity to have stable, polished *nix desktop system because of servers are Linux loaded. Unfortunately it is not easy for normal user to install stable Linux desktop to a laptop hardware. I am spending hundreds hours to have Linux desktop workable (even right now sleep doesn't work on my Panasonic Y7). To me Linux is better (either as Windows) Mac OSx, but I am software engineer and don't belong to the group of general users who need very basic and simple things like browsing, music, video.

My feelings about Mac OSX it is too primitive, especially when you can see it deeper (primitive file system, hardcoded desktop, no real 64bits support before Snow Leopard has came, limited software choice, stupid software like iTunes, Finder. I feel my powerful, from hardware perspective, macbook pro unibody is slower than my Linux running on Y7 low voltage intel 1.6 processor, etc ! )

 

Not completely agree, there are two sides of one coin. University does research mostly on Linux servers and Mac OSx is better from that point of view (it easier to connect two *nix systems). But to build various bloody report, claims expenses and so on you need Windows software

 

Your Linux experience is irrelevant in regards to Apple pricing.
Free Software / Open code is, again, irrelevant to Apple pricing.
Define outdated? Define the segment and percentage of the market that would utilize that hardware.
Apple is a hardware seller of systems that first and foremost support OSX. That is their priority.
If you are buying a Macbook to not use OS X, you are the one engaging in a folly here. Look elsewhere for the plethora of x86/x64 non-Apple laptops that will deliver the power you apparently, "need."
Who are these people? By saying they might not realize they are running non-cutting edge hardware suggests they don't know what they're buying in the first place.
So you are suggesting people buy Macbooks to not run OSX primarily but other OSes instead? Wow.....

Check please....

 

There are people who do that just because you don't doesn't mean others don't and can't.
While you are at it why don't you ask Apple to remove all Boot Camp Support and make it boot only OS X if you are such a purist.
Whether you like it or not Macbooks do get their sales from Platform compatibility.
No one lives in the Apple make believe world that Apple can skip platform updates just because they are "Apple" and doesn't have to keep up with x86 advances when they are using an x86 platform.
The only time you have a valid reason for skipping update is when you are not using x86 as a platform.

 

Electrosoft, yes apple will sell a lot of macbooks anyway to people who want OS x, however that doesn't justify it. A huge portion of Mac users (who a lot have been using Macs foar5+ years) are getting ripped off by apple. The resean apple macboks have become somewhat popular is due to the cutting edge screens qnd hardware they used to use. Its not just the cpus but everything about the current lineup is outdated. How can you justify buying a $2000 MacBook with $800 worth of hardware? What OS it uses is trivial. The programs most people use (browsing, office, dcc, cad) is exactly the same in windows and OS x. Having OS x does not justify a 50% profit margin and false advertising.

I've been interesting in Mac computers for years, I love their design and that they used to spare no cost to make sure every aspect of their computers where high qualitly and well rounded. Now I feel apple has left a huge part of their core supporters in the dark, milking any last $$ they can get out of old core 2 and infirior screens.

 

well said, Xhibit. precisely my point.

if you want to charge premium prices, I have no problem with that. I have $3k set aside for my next purchase and I'd like it to be a MBP. In fact, I've got 99 problems, but cash ain't one. This is about the principle of the matter.

IF you're going to charge me premium prices, I for damn sure am going to expect premium hardware. No exceptions. I'd have to be an idiot to spend $2,000+ on a Core 2 Duo/9600M GT system. I'd be ashamed of myself. though the ignorant get a free pass, those who know better should show that they know better.

I wouldn't buy a BMW with a 150HP engine for $35,000. In fact, BMW isn't arrogant enough to think I'm dumb enough as a consumer to go for that. In like fashion, wouldn't buy a MBP or any other laptop in 2010 that cost $2,000+ and yet failed to include i5/i7/Radeon 5xxx/Nvidia 33x...and I'd like to think that Apple knows that too. Don't be tools, friends. Expect more for your money. None of what we're asking for is outlandish or unreasonable. In fact, we're talking about specs we see in $1,200 Sony's.

Get it together Apple. And fanboys can take a long walk off a short pier, as you're doing nothing but damage control or otherwise trying to justify paying much more for considerably less. We'll have none of it. We know Apple can and will do better.

 

A lot of heat on this issue in the last day.

Apple makes a product that incorporates style, UI, service and their operating system. A lot of people are willing to pay for those things. State of the art hardware isn't in that list. I think that many think that Apple should always have state of the art hardware. Their continued sales success indicates that they can do just fine without the latest and greatest.

If you want to see the difference in service quality, wander over to the Dell XPS board and read about all of the complaints.

 

This thread turned into an entirely different topic.

 

guess you weren't around during the IBM G4/G5 days. state-of-the-art hardware has in many ways *always* been on the list, as performance has always been important to Apple. To believe otherwise is to be absolutely ignorant of who Apple is.

Development of the OS should not be affecting their ability to produce competitive hardware, so take that argument somewhere else.

Funny thing is, when Apple does come out with an i5/i7 solution with a sufficiently powered GPU, you apologists will shuffle off into the night or otherwise pretend we never had this conversation.

Apple will bring a technologically-competent product to market, and I assume you guys won't be sending off e-mails to Jobs telling him he shouldn't have released a new system since the current ones are "just fine" and since you prefer "lower powered systems".



right...

 

> guess you weren't around during the G4 days.

The earliest Apple in my home is a PowerMac G5. I bought it to learn the hardware architecture and to do some software development on. I owned a software company with a partner and one of our products ran on Apple 2's. My partner was responsible for the product and he was a big Apple fan with Apple 2's and their Lisa product. I've had a few Motorola Macs in the past but no longer own them.

> state-of-the-art hardware has in many ways *always* been on the
> list, as performance has always been important to Apple. To believe
> otherwise is to be absolutely ignorant of who Apple is.

Performance is becoming less and less important to the vast majority of computer users as processors become more powerful for the same price. I used to buy higher-end stuff and now just go with what will meet my needs for the next five years. I have a few Core i7 desktops at work. Typical CPU consumption is in the low single digits and part of that is the task manager display. It's funny watching 8 CPUs (threads) doing nothing most of the time.

It's way overkill but I got them used and they were dirt cheap.

> Development of the OS should not be affecting their ability to produce
> competitive hardware, so take that argument somewhere else.

Strawman.

I do not recall making this argument.

> Funny thing is, when Apple does come out with an i5/i7 solution with a
> sufficiently powered GPU, you apologists will shuffle off into the night or
> otherwise pretend we never had this conversation.

Perhaps you could find something in my post history that would indicate this.

In general, telling others what they will think is a game for fools.

> Apple will bring a technologically-competent product to market, and I
> assume you guys won't be sending off e-mails to Jobs telling him he
> shouldn't have released a new system since the current ones are "just fine"
> and since you prefer "lower powered systems".

Apple is trading at $229.76 - an all-time high. The market seems to be just fine with how Steve Jobs is running the company.

 

I care

Also I'm buying a new Mac Book pro to run Windows 7 and pc apps
Why? I like the design of the macbook, I hate the design of dells, etc.

I dont care about os ox, I care about the look, ya know just like people buy expensive clothes because they look better etc

For me, I don't pay for OS X I just pay the extra dime for the design, but thats ok cause I got tons of it lol

 

Macs have always tried to be all around high quality computers, sure browsing the internet wont use up all four threads on an i5, but if you want to do video encoding, intensive digital content creation, it makes a huge difference. Time is money and a lot of professionals need performance. The "Pro" in macbook pro stands for professional, not computer illiterate people who only use facebook and email. i5s and i7 are much faster than core 2s, and to people spending $2000 on a computer, its a very important requirement. To argue that a premium priced notebook can be sold with outdated mid-range (at best) parts, is illogical. If the 15inch macbook pro was priced at $800 it would be a great computer. Problem is it cost $2000.

A similar argument would be to say a Honda civic with a BMW logo should be worth $40,000, because the quality of a Honda Civic is "adequate." I have the money for a premium notebook, I am a fan of OS X and the design of Macs, but I do need performance, and even if I didn't, I don't want to be ripped off on outdated hardware. Its almost insulting that apple hasn't at least discounted their Macbook line, and even tho they are still selling (however sales are slowing) their reputation for offering high tech computers, rather than only a status symbol, is degrading.

 

What are they going to do with their stock of out-dated computers? Sell them for cheaper? Or drain out supplies at regular prices and then release the newer version.

 

> Macs have always tried to be all around high quality computers, sure
> browsing the internet wont use up all four threads on an i5, but if
> you want to do video encoding, intensive digital content creation, it
> makes a huge difference. Time is money and a lot of professionals need
> performance.

I do video encoding on my MacBook Pro on a casual basis. I just start it
up and let it run. If you want professional tools, get a Mac Pro.

> The "Pro" in macbook pro stands for professional, not computer
> illiterate people who only use facebook and email.

Last I checked, you only need money to buy a MacBook Pro. Doesn't matter
if you're a professional or illiterate.

> i5s and i7 are much faster than core 2s, and to people spending
> $2000 on a computer, its a very important requirement.

i5s and i7s have certain architectural features which improve
single-threaded performance. They also provide additional threads
which may or may not improve performance - it depends on the
application. Nehalem may have added some SSE instructions and, of
course, the big one is the integrated memory controller. The i7s are
nice in that they have triple-channel memory but you pay for the
performance in terms of power consumptions. I have two i7 systems so I
should know.

There are lots of people that spend $2,000 on a computer that couldn't
tell you much about the processor. I just spent $1,700 on an iMac with
a Core 2 Duo. To some, $2,000 is pocket change.

> To argue that a premium priced notebook can be sold with outdated
> mid-range (at best) parts, is illogical.

Why? You claim a tautology with no evidence.

> If the 15inch macbook pro was priced at $800 it would be a great
> computer. Problem is it cost $2000.

And Apple is selling them hand over fist. A $2,000 price doesn't appear
to be much of a problem to Apple's market. I have three MacBook pros. I
think that I paid around $7,000 for them. Not a big deal.

> A similar argument would be to say a Honda civic with a BMW logo
> should be worth $40,000, because the quality of a Honda Civic is
> "adequate." I have the money for a premium notebook, I am a fan of OS
> X and the design of Macs, but I do need performance, and even if I
> didn't, I don't want to be ripped off on outdated hardware. Its almost
> insulting that apple hasn't at least discounted their Macbook line,
> and even they are still selling (however sales are slowing) their
> reputation for offering high tech computers, rather than only a status
> symbol, is degrading.

In trading, we have a concept that sounds simple but a lot of people
have trouble implementing it: do more of what works and less of what
doesn't. Clearly what Apple is doing now works. That's an objective
fact. What you are talking about are your feelings which aren't
validated by the market.

 

One other issue about video encoding: I'm running a job right now on a Penryn 2.5 MacBook Pro. CPU usage is pinned at 90 percent so there's a bottleneck in the system. It very well may be that the disk is the bottleneck. That might be fixable with an external drive or two but doing that means you lose your portability and you may as well go with a Mac Pro at that point if you really need the best in performance.

If I needed the best performance, I could just use my Core i7 systems. In general I prefer doing video work on the Mac because all of the tools that I need are free on the web except for one.

 

mmoy, sorry most ppl dont have 2000 dollars to blow on outdated tech.