Wouldn't the MBP 17" make more sense if...

Wouldn't the MBP 17" make more sense if, instead of being a big-screen MBP 15" (with the two models basically indistinguishable except for screen size) it was a proper mobile workstation/desktop replacement? Make it at least 50% thicker to accommodate twin hard drives and separate cooling fans for the CPU and GPU (see Sager 8000-series and Asus G-series for the sort of fan layout I mean). Keep the things that make it an Apple...aluminum unibody construction, 16x10 screen resolution, well-executed multitouch touchpad, OSX...but make is a decidedly different beast from its near-twin, the 15" MBP. But make it an Apple mobile workstation in contrast to the 15", which would remain the mobility-oriented performance laptop.

I'm sure people who work in the creative industries who rely on Aperture and Final Cut would appreciate such a machine. And it would help Apple continue to court gamers, which it is slowly but steadily trying to do (more and more games are showing up in the App store, and not just the $5.99 indie variety...Civ V, COD4, KOTOR, Borderlands, etc). I don't see that it would drive any buyers away...the few who like the 17" MBP just the way it is could easily buy a fully-loaded 15" MBP.

So why doesn't this happen?

 

I am not terribly familiar with the MBP's of this era. But why are you calling for a drastic increase in thickness just to accommodate a second drive. Surely you don't intend for them to be stacked. You only need to increase thickness enough to accommodate circuit board, etc that might need to be shoved above it to allow that space to exist without impacting the normal components.

Cooling is a different story and of course you have to quote the G53/G73/G74 series as well as atleast one other G7* series. I do believe the majority of the G series never actually benefited from dual cooling solutions sadly. I seem to remember the G72 not having separate coolers. Question is do they need it? Certainly turning back to gaming notebooks there has been plenty of call and the work done on the MBP's could require better cooling, maybe.

 

There's quite a few changes that need be made. IPS screen should be an option, along with higher end Quadro/FirePro cards. Moreover, cooling definitely needs to be addressed, it doesn't matter how, but increasing the size does allow for better air management either through better heat sink distribution, fans, etc etc. In any case, a "professional" computer geared towards "professional" users is lacking in Apple's line. The Macbook "Pro" is nothing more than a moniker, not a description of its intended uses.

 

I actually popped my MBP open and found two separate fans, albeit very small ones. But everything is sandwiched in so tightly that, one fan or two or three or four, there's not going to be a ton of airflow. They're small fans, there's not much airspace between components, and the exhaust vent is small and partially blocked by the display hinge. A thicker design not only gives you more room for a second drive, but it also allows more airflow around all internal components, allows you to accommodate larger cooling components, etc. There's a reason no other 17" is as thin as the MBP, and it's not because everyone else is lazy. I understand that the thinness was done here to keep the family aesthetic with the 13" and 15" MBP, but for the 17" MBP, I think it was the wrong choice.

And I do think a machine needs that aggressive of a cooling system for extended bouts of gaming. I thought that prior to the G73, the Asus G-series was infamous for heat problems? You'd know better than I would. Certainly other desktop-replacement systems that aren't built around their cooling systems (say, the Vaio F22) have heat problems. My MBP gets worryingly hot after about an hour or so of gaming. Feedback from Sager and Asus G73/74/53 owners, though, is very positive on the heat front. I'm assuming that work-related tasks that result in extended CPU/GPU usage (such as in the creative industries) raise similar issues.

 

Couldn't agree more, on all fronts. +1 rep.

 

Nothing I hate worse than big giant fat machines like that. Maybe you should call for something new added, not changing something thats already great as-is.

 

Here here!! Nothing worse than the PC-centric mind trying to change something that's already successful.

 

Trying to tweak or improve something that's already successful...that's not a "PC-centric mind," that's just good business practice. You don't wait until you've lost your customers to improve stuff. That's why OSX Lion is out even though Snow Leopard worked just fine. That's why the Prius Mk III was released even though the Prius Mk II was still selling well. Etc.

Yes, the MBP 17" is a commercial success. My mother and father own matching his-and-hers 17" MBPs. Neither of them bought it because they wanted a 17" machine that was less than an inch thick. They bought 'em because they wanted the biggest, nicest laptops Apple sells. Apple would not lose any of these customers, and would gain new ones in the professional and gaming fields, by adding a second hard drive to the 17" and beefing up the cooling system.

What is the utility of having a 17" machine that's just under an inch thick instead of 1.6" thick? Don't just tell me it sells as well...that doesn't mean it's selling BECAUSE of its thinness. Tell me why the thickness of a 17" machine matters so much that it shouldn't be changed to improve the machine's capabilities.

 

If a 2nd HD is required to be stuffed into the 17-inch, why not just do away with the optical drive and place the 2nd HD in its place? Apple is practically saying now that the DVD drive is being phased out, since Lion is being deployed via the web. I could see Apple offering that lineup, where a custom option is to change out the DVD drive for a 2nd HD and throw in one of those external DVD drives they have.

In my MBP13, I went the Opti-Bay route and took out the DVD drive and placed a 2nd HD in its place. I could afford to do that since I had an external HP DVD drive I could hook up through USB if I needed. I haven't looked back since.

 

I watch DVD movies on my computer on a regular basis (well technically, my kids do, but still, that's how it's being used on a regular basis). And I think that's a common thing to do with a 17" desktop replacement machine. Even if DVD-ROMs are on becoming less and less important (and given the rise of both Steam and the App Store, I think that's a reasonable statement), DVD and Blu-Ray movies certainly aren't.

I've also had situations at work (civil litigation) where I unexpectedly needed an optical drive. People still ship data around on CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs (inexpensive to make, read-only format), and I've shown up at a deposition where the deponent unexpectedly brought nine CD-ROMs worth of photographs with him. I copied them onto my hard drive during the deposition because I had my laptop with me, even though I hadn't known he'd be bringing any optical discs.

I debated going the two-hard-drives-and-no-optical route with my next machine, and I decided I still like having an onboard optical drive. There's no reason a 17" machine shouldn't have enough internal space for two hard drives AND an optical drive.

 

So apparently, your preferences should be enforced on everyone else.

No one can want any more performance than the current macbook pro 17" because you don't like laptops slightly thicker or heavier than what they are now. All of this because you think that would make a laptop "fat".
(/facepalm)

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "think differently".

Some people can actually lift 7-8lbs and dont mind a little extra weight and thickness if the laptop performs better and has superior cooling.
Heaven forbid someone would want performance AND the ability to run MacOS.

You DO realize that if a macbook is too heavy for you, you are not forced to buy that model right?

 

woudl be nice if they offered 3 options... second hard drive, extra battery, or an optical drive.

thats why you can plug one in. a Optical Drive internal uses up a TON of room... almost as much as the battery.

You could fit dual GPUs and dual CPUs all higher end with extra cooling, a second hard drive, and a bigger battery.. .all in the space that one optical drive takes.

so the opposite is true... if you don't like the Macbook Pro as is.. why should it be changed just for you. You know your not forced to buy it if its not big enough.

If you actually read what I wrote... I never said that a machine like that should NOT be made.. I simply said leave the current MBP 17" alone and ask for something new... Macbook Spaceheater or whatever... If my preferences shouldn't be forced on everyone else, neither should yours.

 

I like the option of configurable bays like that; I just don't like having two bays instead of three in a 17" machine. Many, many 17" machines have three bays...because there's that sort of interior room in a 17" machine.

I would not have thought to bring an optical drive with me to the deposition. I'd have to pack an external optical drive everywhere I go (along with its power source, etc), and that's a lot less convenient than having a 1.5" think laptop instead of a 1" laptop.

Because Apple has two different models that are nearly identical (15" MBP and 17" MBP), with the 15" making more sense than the 17", and Apple has an entire market segment where it has no offering at all. With a few tweaks, one of those two nearly-identical models could serve that currently-unserved market segment.

I ask again: what's the utility or purpose in having a 17" machine that's less than an inch thick? If you don't want it to be thicker to accommodate an additional bay and a heavier-duty cooling system, why not? I know you want the 17" MBP to stay as thin as it is, but you've never said why you prefer a 17" to be that thin.

 

the 17in macbook is nice but it's not a gaming machine. I think game companies are starting to develop for the mac because there is a larger market share, but the cooling system on the mac isn't good enough for modern games.

Even TF2 sends my 17in MBP into the high 80C range. That's way too hot for extended periods of time over months & years.

If you're into gaming, get a gaming laptop or desktop. Apple doesn't make them, and that's okay.

Though I do wish the 17in MBP had a number pad. If it did the keyboard and trackpad would have to be off-center and "off-center" just doesn't work from an aesthetic point of view.

 

Apple needs to address the heat issue though. It doesn't matter how. LG did it be instating a better cooling system at the cost of the optical drive. I'd KILL for that in my 15 inch. I don't see how you guys can be so blind to the blatant overheating problems. Those drives are so God damn useless.

 

Relevant, though NSFW:

Penny Arcade! - The New Hotness

directeuphorium, you say "If you're into gaming, get a gaming laptop or desktop. Apple doesn't make them, and that's okay." But there are games for Apples, many of which Apple is selling through the App store. Starcraft II, World of Warcraft, Civ V, Borderlands...all of thse you can play in OSX. But what machine are you supposed to play them on? If Apple is going to be courting gamers by selling games through the App store, it should sell at least one computer that is a good choice for playing those games.

 

It is very much so PC-centric thinking in terms of how the thread has been going. In the PC world it's common to have bigger heavier, clunkier and thicker machines and the PC world is more forgiving about owning machines like this so they will buy them wholeheartedly. Gamers are even more so forgiving and will accept an overgrown tank running Windows 7 so they can play Starcraft II and Crisis as if there aren't other things they could be doing on their computers.

Apple has never focused on making big army tank notebooks so for someone here to say that Apple should make a bigger and thicker Macbook to accommodate stackable drives and such then that's PC centric thinking since only those types of machines are in the PC world and for Apple it would be a huge step backwards.

If you honestly think the gaming world of customers would suddenly pick up for Apple if they increased the thickness of the 17"MBP, and adding another drive and increasing the cooling system, well then you have a lot to learn about Apple's business.

The MBP, the iMac and the Mac Pro are all very fine machines and are more than capable of running many of the latest games on medium to high settings. It's all up to the developers if they want to make the games, it's not about Apple beefing this up or beefing that up. The gaming world seems to be picking up with the addition of Steam and that didn't require a beefy Mac for them to create a store for Mac users and it's been doing well.

In terms of the thinness of the 17" MBP. Other than a gamer, who else would prefer a thicker and heavier MBP? It's not about me having to explain that to you. It should be obvious.

 

video editors, graphics designers, engineers, and research labs come to mind.
many have not looked at Macs or have moved away from because of the lack of certain options, specifically Quadro or FirePro GPU's, IPS screens and as mentioned the lack of large storage options wthout going external, even the lack of ability to run more than 8GB RAM is turning into a large hinderance.

I have been watching a large shift in those industries the last 3 years or so.

 

It's not really the games. It's any form of stressing the CPU/GPU. Why have a powerful CPU and a moderately powerful GPU, but lack both the cooling AND the physical power to fuel them? Apple's magsafe is rated at 80 watts. That's pathetic.

Even if you don't know anything about electronics, know this: CPU rated at 45 watts, GPU at 30 watts, gee, the LCD, logicboard, RAM, backlit keyboard, optical drive, harddrive, are combined sipping at 5 watts? No chance. Mobo's pushing 20 watts easy, so is the optical drive at full speed. RAM is ~5, same with the harddrive. In short, we need ~150 watts give or take to power the machine, so why one EARTH does apple give us a power supply rated at 80 watts? Because it's smaller, sleeker, form over function thinking in its truest form.

The AW M14x comes with a 150 watt supply with identical specs. It just makes no sense why Apple thinks they can get away with 80.

Likewise, can we agree that the internals on the Apple is no different than any PC [apart from the logicboard obviously]? Then why is it many similar notebooks run 10-15 degrees cooler? That's overheating. I don't see how you say it's not. Because the board itself isn't physically setting off smoke alarms, that everything is "operating as planned"? Those values, 100c, is a fail-safe. That's a last reserve kind of thing. As in, if it were human, it'd be your body going into coma. Just because you're suffering from anaphylactic shock but not yet in a coma does NOT mean your body's normal and "perfectly working as planned".

And believe me I'm all for thin, thin is the only reason I went Mac. Mac has nothing to offer besides "thin". Just get rid of that damn drive to improve cooling, and give a proper power supply for the internals of the machine.

 

Professionals buying the MacBook Pro 17" as a mobile workstation. That's what the "pro" is for, right? Professionals? Professionals in the creative industries who have to use the CPU and GPU for extended periods of time, generating high heat levels, would appreciate a beefier cooling system at the cost of an extra pound.

Edit: KCETech1 summed it up better than I could.

If Apple didn't want gamers buying Apples, they wouldn't sell games through the App store. Period.

They already do make the games. The world's most popular RTS and the world's most popular MMO both run smoothly in OSX. It's just that Apple doesn't have a laptop that can handle the heat, and the game designers can't do anything about the heat. That's a hardware issue, not a software issue.

 

There's quite a large amount of video editors, graphic designers using Macs. The term "engineer" can be quite broad so I can't comment on that. Since when does a graphic designer need a thicker and more beefier Mac? Apple makes their own best selling video editing suite so if their own computers can it then I would say your point it moot about video editing.
I will give you that about IPS but most workstations are using larger external displays and in this case the iMac would be a better option. The Quadro and the FirePro types of GPU's that you will find in the Dell Precision Workstation notebooks and are best for CAD software and while AutoCAD is on Mac it's not a large enough audience to cater to a build a whole different machine for.
Now, don't misunderstand, it would be great I'm sure to see select models like that from Apple but they know who their core audience is just like Dell and HP which is why Dell and HP cater more to the cheapo customer. Their workstations are not for the masses.

 

The thickness has nothing to do with the software and everything to do with the cooling.

Here's a graphic designer posting on NBR's forums seeking a mobile workstation with a good cooling system:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/wha...signer-mutlimedia-laptop-doesnt-overheat.html

Just one example. They actually were pondering getting an Alienware, even though they didn't list gaming as one of the things they were going to do with the machine.

Graphic design professionals WOULD appreciate better cooling. That helps them do their work. A super-slim case for their 17" laptop doesn't.

 

Gotcha, but see you're arguing a useless point. There's a machine for everyone's needs on the market and Apple doesn't necessarily have to have THAT customer for THAT purpose. Chances are THAT customer has a Mac at home anyway. . Your argument would have a stronger point to it if Apple was actually losing business in the computer market, fighting an uphill battle trying to shove Macs in everybody's face or seeing several companies backing out of supporting Macs. At that point they would need to rethink how they are building their machines for their customers. That's just not happening. In fact it's just the opposite.
Without Apple building a "workstation" notebook Autodesk created their award-winning AutoCAD for Mac last year. Without thicker MacBooks with super sized GPU's and fancy cooling systems, Steam electively opened up their stores to the Mac and it's been successful so far. Why is this happening? Because the word is spreading that Apple's computers are very good machines with an amazing OS and they are selling to the extreme. If after people bought them and felt they wasted their money Apple would've lost a lot of business by now.

 

Ironic. I bought my MacBook Pro because of the promise of "the best of both worlds"--OSX for daily tasks (Vista was the alternative at the time) but Windows XP for gaming. And when Steam started carrying Mac games, I installed it on my OSX partition in addition to my Windows partition (where it's one of my main sources of games).

Nevertheless, I have been unhappy with the results. For three years now, my MBP has struggled with heat while gaming continuously. It's got a very good CPU and GPU for a 2008-era machine (Mass Effect 2 runs seamlessly), but not the cooling system to deal with their extended use. And I'm running out of hard drive space (you need more hard drive space if you're going to divide up your hard drive into two partitions with two OSes, which most gamers are going to do on a Mac until all hot new releases are available for both OSes).

Replacement time for my computer is coming up. Instead of buying another $2500 MBP, I'm most likely going to buy an Asus with dual hard drives and a beefy cooling system. I would consider staying with Apple if they made a mobile-workstation-esque MBP 17", but the current MBPs don't fit my needs. So there's a loss of at least one $2500 sale.

Do I have statistics on how common people find themselves in my situation? No, but neither do you. Apple could keep customers like me without losing a single customer by turning the 17" MBP into a proper mobile workstation and offering a 1920x1200 screen in the 15" MBP for the few people who are really really upset by that change to the 17" MBP. That's all I'm saying.

 

^ well...

1.) your 9600M GT is about 4 years old, brah. You shouldn't be surprised that it struggles. Hell, the 9600M GT could barely do 1080p/60 in Team Fortress 2 on my C2D 18" Vaio. You can blame the 9600M GT for that...and had you read any review on that GPU, you would have known that before plopping down lots of money.

2.) If you're running out of HDD space, get a bigger HDD or add a second one. I'm running a 160GB SSD + 750GB HDD. Maybe you should consider that. Or at least simply upgrade the HDD you have.

3.) The machine will get hot, but unless you're experiencing some sort of crashes, the temp shouldn't be an issue.

4.) Go with what works for your needs. If you don't need 6-7 hours of battery life and don't like OS X, your money is MUCH better spent elsewhere. Mac Pros are not designed for gaming. I always surprises me how many people seem to think they are...then you buy them and are dissatisfied with the gaming performance. SMH.


Anyway,

I'm very happy with my 17" as-is. I'd like Apple to lose the optical drive and add a second HDD by default.

I'd also like to see an IPS screen option, as well as workstation graphics options (Quadro/Firepro).

But really, a second HDD and an IPS screen are the only options I'd really like.

That said, gamers are not the target audience for MBP's. Keep your gaming laptop weight, noise, battery life and thickness, brah. That shyt sucks. We don't want to sacrifice our 6-8 hours of battery life for the sake of a GPU that plays Crysis 2 at 1080p/60 but cuts 60% off the batt.

 

Every company will lose customers from time to time so don't' make this about Apple only. Some of your best workstation laptop companies lose customers daily for not making the kind of machine the customer wants or thinks they want.

You seem to be computer literate or you wouldn't be here arguing moot points so let's just chalk it up to it being your own fault for not doing your homework before buying a Mac, especially for gaming. I think any concerned "gamer" about performance can see without extensive research if a Mac is capable of handling their gaming needs. Simple as that.

 

That's just plain ignorant.

 

AJ--

I didn't say I was unhappy with the 9600M GT's performance. To the contrary, I said it was excellent for a computer of its age, still running new games pretty well. It's the heat and the hard drive space, NOT the CPU or GPU, that makes the current MBPs poor machines for someone who likes to game.

If the MBP was never meant to game, why did Apple put a consumer-oriented NVidia 9600M GT in it, instead of a business-oriented Quadro or Firepro?

I know you're happy with your MBP 17" as is, but would you be less happy with it if it was 0.5 inches thicker and had a second HDD from the factory (in addition to an optical)?

 

...and how many Macs have you owned?

I've owned 2 and gamed on them regularly. Now show me your Mac resume.

It's not an opinion: if the computer isn't having some sort of stability issues, the temp when gaming is irrelevant. If it's overheating, you'll know it. If the CPU overheats, the machine is designed to shut down. Otherwise, the machine is operating within all operational thresholds and won't have any issues. It'll be hot in certain spots, but it won't break.

The only Macs that had real issues where the 07-08 Macs. But that was an Nvidia issue.

 

Why so defensive? This isn't an e-peen contest, is it? "Mac resume", are you serious? This makes me embarrassed to be a fellow Mac user.

Anyway, to most manufacturers, mid 80s is abnormally hot. To us MBP users, we're LUCKY if we peak at mid-80s. High 70s, low 80s, is normal, good cooling allows some gaming/business notebooks to hit low 70s, even breaking into 60s. 90s is borderline critical temperatures for the chip, which is what most of MBPs have.

Are you telling me Apple has a special batch of Intel chips that somehow break this stream of norm? Heat is something Apple hasn't addressed, and while Apple does have an uphill battle with such a small and sleek chassis, isn't that why we pay a premium? PC makers can't manufacturer such "capable" machines in tiny packages while Apple can, but with this amount of heat and throttling... Apple hasn't really done anything special. Only Apple can get away with such high temperatures and pass it off as "normal". If Dell or HP tried such a stunt, there'd be a return rate of 100%.

Furthermore, there's the issue of throttling. There's absolutely no reason for notebooks to throttle when plugged. This is a result of both inadequate power, in addition to thermal thresholds causing throttling. Yes, thermal.

If and when your computer shuts down due to heat, that's an instant red flag. That's not something you shrug off. The CPU doesn't operate at peak efficiency at critical temperatures, it'll downclock itself to protect it from the T junction. So the whole statement, "if it doesn't crash, you're fine" is possibly one of the worst Apple-cult arguments I've ever heard. It's a huge problem.

Now show me your Mac resume.

 

Heat: Amazon.com: laptop pads: Electronics

Hard Drive Space: Amazon.com: laptop pads: Electronics

If you need help upgrading your HDD, any of us regulars can guide you though the backup process if need be. "Running out of HDD space" is not a valid complaint for a computer user. Backup --> Upgrade --> Restore backup --> Profit.

Well remember, Quadro's and Firepro's aren't designed for gaming either, and often have driver issues with games. Quadro's and Firepro's are PRO GPUs designed for use with applications like Maya, AutoCad, 3DStudio Max, and other such software. You buy one or the other based on the certs and features you need (or don't need). You can game on them, but that's not their primary function and stability (drivers) is not guaranteed.

Adding a Quadro or Firepro would have forced a form-factor redesign to accommodate the increase in heat those cards create. It would have also meant drastically shorter battery life. And who knows what kind of issues they may have had with other software. While increasing the cost of the laptop by several hundred dollars.

You may see a large market for such a $3700 laptop, but I do not.

They went with the 9600M because it was a well-known and proven mid-range GPU platform that could do most GPU-needy things reasonably well while not breaking the heat/battery life bank. As a bonus, it performed fairly well with gaming. At least, I assume this is the large part of the rationale. I'm sure there were other factors like cost/unit and perhaps a preference at the time to work with Nvidia. The ability to play games doesn't mean the laptop was designed FOR GAMERS. Those are 2 very different notions.

But again, any potential laptop buyer who is interested in gaming as a priority should look at the scoring and ratings of the GPU in the laptops they want to buy. They should know exactly what the GPU will be capable of before investing a dime. They should lurk all the gaming forums to see what people who own the laptop are saying. THEN they should buy based on that information. Otherwise, you're asking to either (1) overspend or (2) not get the power you need for the best price.

FWIW, my 2011 MBP plays darn near every game I throw at it at 1920x1200/60 with high/max settings. But that's not why I bought the laptop, so it's just a bonus for me.

I would not be less happy with it if it were 0.5" thicker. I WOULD be less happy with it if it did not get me 6-8 hours of battery life or if its weight increased noticeably.

If either were to happen, I'd buy an HP Elitebook 17" as my next computer. You see, the draw (for me) to the MBP 17" was that it had a combination of hardware features that no other laptop matches. Find another laptop in the world that offers the combination of:

1.) A high (though not highest) quality display
2.) An i7 CPU
3.) A high mid-range GPU
4.) 6-8 hours of demonstrable battery life
5.) Rock-solid stability
6.) Relatively light weight
7.) all of the above in a 17" form-factor.


Trust me I looked. The only one that exists is the MBP. If #4 were to drop in half, all of a sudden the Elitebook and Dell Precision laptops become clearly better buys.

So again I say, if you don't need that specific combination of features, you're wasting your money on a Mac.

 

I don't know if you care to reveal how long you've been a Mac user but I've been on the Mac for almost 15 years now. They've had quite a few thick notebooks and each one of them have had the same issue of getting quite warm, so this is not a thickness issue. Also you mentioned the Alienware having super cooling system. You do realize it's not there just so you will have a "cool" experience, it's to keep the machine from all but turning to fire. Gaming CPU's and GPU's require more sophisticated cooling and a thicker body to handle all of that. If you notice Apple doesn't refer to their computers as "Laptops", they are notebooks. there's absolutely no reason for anyone to be doing any 3D gaming while having a notebook sitting on their lap.

They are meant to get hot and they do, it doesn't mean anything will become damaged. There's been no evidence of a Mac computer ever experiencing meltdown or hardware failure due to heat, yet from time to time this forum will have people ripping their MacBooks apart to reapply thermal paste. Call me an apologist all you want but don't you think Apple knows what they are doing with their own product better than you? Do you think they would create machines that will overheat? The company doesn't get to being one of the top ranked on the stock market for being stupid. Just saying'.

Now on the other hand, those other companies that are building their notebooks the "proper" way in your eyes happen to be the companies on the TV shopping networks pushing their crap down uninformed customers' throats. I realize I'm stretching my point a bit here but you're saying Apple could offer better to get more customers, but they are already doing better than for the most part than each individual PC company. Somebody's customers are satisfied.

 

USED to you mean have you been keeping up with how ticked off major editing houses are with FCP-X for its removal of outright vital features and not adding what we/they needed to stay competitive with the likes of Avid or Premier?

yes we may get them back later but FCP7 is so long in the tooth now Avid and Adobe are taking away a massive chunk of that industry as well. the broadcast editing house I sub contract to on occasion based in NY, with a sub office in Vancouver has said due to the discontinuation of Xserve and this BS paid for beta .... were changing platforms as well.

hang out at the likes of creative cow and admire the unhappy " professionals " over both the hardware and the software please.

 

And your point? You didn't make one. Or was this just a flame post? Cuz at the end of the day those softwares you mentioned still run on the Mac.

 

yes, and all but FCP run on the Wintel side as well.... and those idiots give us the portable workstations and the extra speed to be competitive now.

only " pro " app left strictly to OSX is Aperture

and only parts of Avid run natively on OSX

 

Powerbook G4 from 2004-2008. MacBook Pro 15" from 2008 to present.

Edit: do you want to know about the Mac Classic and Mac Color Classic I had when I was a schoolkid?

I do not believe in giving ANY company blind faith. They're selling products to serve MY needs, and if I don't think they're doing it well, I say so.

Many companies do. In the MBP's case, hot enough in extended gaming to not be good for the machine's long-term health, most likely yes. Hot enough to cause pain when I touch parts of the case, I guarantee it.

Apple is dominant on the stock market because of their mobile devices and iTunes. Mac computers are a tiny part of the Apple economic empire. Regardless, not all economically successful companies are impervious to doing stupid stuff. Google "Toyota Tundra tailgates" sometime for some fun reading.

I see more TV ads for Apple computers than all other computer companies combined, and the Mac versus PC ads are aimed at the uninformed and are pretty ridiculous. What are you talking about?

I didn't buy it solely for gaming, but that was one of the things I like to do with my computers. When I bought it, the Apple store in Eugene, Oregon had an entire aisle dedicated to games. I guess that was all a ruse, then, huh, if everyone here KNOWS you're not supposed to play games on Apples?

 

Did you just recommend a laptop cooler for a MBP?

Flip your Mac over, tell me what you see. Nothing but the 4 black feet. Now tell me what you DON'T see. That's right: vents [or lack thereof]. So, how are laptop coolers suppose to help? Well, there's another way. Heat TRANSFER, akin an extended heatsink. Aluminum is a great thermal conductor, and most notebook coolers are metal as well, with a few of them being aluminum. What's the problem? The 4 feet. It elevates the laptop such that metal to metal contact is minimized, therefore heat transfer is minimized.

In short, laptop coolers blow. Literally.

 

I have the Rain Design iLap (sold at Apple stores and on the Apple online store) and use all the time for gaming. As you note, there's no metal-on-metal contact, so it can't serve as an extended heat sink. And there's no vent on the bottom, so a fan-powered laptop cooler wouldn't work.

I own it, but I'm not convinced it does a lot.

 

You missed the point here. I didn't say I had "faith" in the company, let alone blind faith. My point is you're sitting here clickity clacking on a forum chatting about what you think Apple isn't doing right for their customers while Apple is sitting on piles of uncountable dollars and being one of the most successful tech companies in history. Somebody knows what they are doing.

Do a comparison of Alienware's website and Apple's website. Alienware positions their computers as gaming machines only. In fact their website is full of all kinds of funky colors and graphics that only a gamer could drool over. They don't even advertise any productivity capabilities of their computers. Apple's website advertises their computers as general purpose machines ranging anywhere from common web surfing to moderate gaming to professional needs. They don't position their Macs as the computer for the "gamer" so your point about the machines long-term health in regards to gaming is moot. Again, there's been no evidence of any meltdowns from getting hot.

Glad you've convinced yourself that the knowledge you think you're spewing here is true, because it's not my man. Apple is publicly traded so they have to reveal sales numbers of each product division. Time after time they show that the Mac is their bread and butter. Do you honestly think a $199 iPhone sold in droves is going to bring in more money than $1000-$2000 Mac? iTunes doesn't make them enough money to talk about.

TV ads are not the same as pushing your crap on the home shopping networks which is degrading and just shows that a company is hurting if they have to do that. HP and Dell have become QVC celebrities. LOL.

Again as I mentioned earlier, being able to play games on a computer and having a "gaming computer" are two different things.
Ah....the age old car analogies...but here goes...Honda advertises they make powerful cars with amazing horsepower. So does that mean you should buy a Honda Civic to race in the Daytona??

 

Anyway, one thing is pretty true though. If Apple merely added 0.5 inches (which is over 50% thickness) to accommodate everything asked for, I wouldn't bat an eye at such a machine.

The MBP qualifies as an ultraslim, and among ultraslim machines it remains the king of performance. Adding even a quarter of an inch puts it in mainstream territory, where its performance is average. Adding half an inch puts it in gaming/professional workstation territory, where it's severely underpowered.

Apple needs to address the heat issue WITHOUT increasing thickness.

But I speak on the 15 inch's behalf, I don't even know why I'm here.

 

The last line is critical. This thread is about the 17", not the 15". Anyone who places mobility as a high priority isn't buying the 17" ANYWAY, because it's just MBP 15 parts in a bigger package. That's why I'm convinced that Apple wouldn't alienate MBP 17" owners by adding improved cooling and an extra bay, at the cost of some weight. Because those who feel the way you do about the computer's dimensions are buying the 15, not the 17.

Regardless, I give up on this thread. The hostility I've seen from some corners (calling people "brah," demanding to know their "Apple resumes," etc) is far beyond what can foster any sort of productive discussion about a frickin' computer's specs.

 

I'm perfectly fine with Apple's decision with the mid-high range 6750m, which is consistent with the rest of their choices, 330m, 9600m, and 8600m. It might even be a slight upgrade. I'd rather see the 6850m/6870m, or at least the option for it, but hey, that's not a huge gripe from my end.

Just the fact that I can't USE the card in it. The damn thing throttles at times, and it's pretty noticeable when it does. But it's pretty easy to see why. Magsafe rated at 80w, CPU + GPU on their own require 75w.

CPU at low 90s could be another reason, but this is perfectly "normal", right?

 

You know, if you weren't so rude about it, I would have let this one slide.



CHART OF THE DAY: In Case You Had Any Doubts About Where Apple's Revenue Comes From

 

Heh, I thought he was joking. Isn't it common knowledge that iPhone is Apple's bread and butter? Guess not. It's been that way since iPhone 3g.

I think engadget [or anandtech] published an article describing their fear that Apple might neglect their Mac line altogether given the continual drop in the Mac line, citing the Macbook/Mac Mini still using 3 year old hardware. Obviously an exaggeration, but definitely worth a mention.

Macs are not only a minority in the OS world, but Apple isn't even top dawg in computer sales. Dell and HP both have Apple beat in that department.

It's funny that they group Mac Pro/Mini/MBA/MBP/MB/iMacs into one category and it's still pathetic. You can technically argue to group the iPhone, iPad, and iPod as iDevice and see it gobble up 2/3, even 3/4ths of the graph.

Also, that graph is pre-iPad growth. Graph's old, the discrepancy is even bigger now.

More recent here: After Amazing Earnings, is Apple Invincible?

EDIT: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2011/07/13/hp-dell-again-lead-worldwide-pc-sales.html

I guess I made a mistake. Apple's 3rd ranking only applies to the US. It falls behind Lenovo, Asus, and Acer in the worldwide market share.

 

Word. But what I'll do next time is research the web and get my information from multiple sources before coming here and "teaching" people what I think I know.

 

oh you guys.

 

Apple is very consumer-oriented as a company. the only real professional machine they've got is the Mac Pro, and even that has terrible graphics options. Apple is much more about making prosumers happy than making actual pros happy.

So as a result, they make a 17" laptop that neglects all of the professional grade features found on the HP 8760w and Dell M6600. No IPS, no 2920 CPU, no Quadro 5010M, Blu-Ray, etc. But they make a laptop that prosumers apparently love, and apparently that's all that matters to Apple.

It's interesting because Lenovo dropped their 17" workstation, so I bet that these 17" workstations are a niche segment that isn't generating much profit compared to the development costs.

Now I wish they would do better cooling and maybe a bigger power supply so you won't be throttled, but if performance is critical, then it's best to stay away from Macs anyway, seeing as how all the best PC parts are available on Windows computers.

 

Just a few numbers so we are all clear where the current Macbook Pro stands in the computing world when it comes to graphics:

I'll use 3dmark06 as it has a standard test, has many scores available, and works on all machines in the comparison. Note, 3dmark06 will be particularly kind to the macbook pro as it has a heavy processor slant.

For the purpose of the comparison I used only single-GPU laptops/desktops

3dmark06 standard 1280x1024
11" Netbook = 500-1800
ASUS G50VT = 9k (10k OC'd)
macbook pro = 9000-9500
560m (MSI 17" 7.7lbs) = 15-16k
6970m (Clevo 15" 6.8lbs) = 19,482
485m (Clevo 15" 6.8lbs)= 20k
580m (Clevo 15" 6.8lbs) = 21k
(the most powerful single-GPU period) Desktop GTX 580 = 24k

That's right... the 17" macbook pro is closer to an 11" NETBOOK than a high-performance laptop.
No, we aren't talking about 25lb luggables. The heaviest laptop compared here is the 7.7lb 17" MSI.

Existing (and shipping) high-end mobile cards that ship in laptops barely heavier than the macbook pro 17" are closer to the best even a desktop can offer (single GPU) than the macbook pro is to the performance laptops.

As you can see, its not even a comparison. The current 17" macbook pros are closer to 11" netbooks than performance machines. I cannot imagine anyone who isn't a complete apple fanatic who wouldn't want a bit more zing in a reasonably portable apple notebook.

 

6750m can get more around 12k in 3dmark06... not 9000. MBPs original 9k that was around everywhere was on Apple's crappy drivers.

that is beyond the point though... your conclusion is twisted.

Saying its "closer" to anything is useless. I don't think anyone has claimed that the 6750 is a high end card, but its a very good mid-ranged one. With all the other +'s of the MBP over those other you listed, its well worth not having quite as high end GPU.