Slashdot Mirror
Apple Unveils MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo
daveschroeder writes "Apple has just announced the upgraded MacBook Pro (15.4- and 17-inch models) with the Intel Core 2 Duo ("Merom") 64-bit dual core processor. The standard hard drive sizes have been increased, a FireWire 800 port has been added to all models (again, reaffirming that FireWire, and specifically FireWire 800, is not dead, and that Apple responded to customer requests to add it to the 15.4-inch model), and the optical drive is now dual-layer-write-capable on all models."
I hope they continue to support Target Disk Mode via Firewire 800, and even if they had a similar way of doing the same thing with USB would be nice - that feature has saved my ass an innumerable amount of times. It makes for a nice troubleshooting option and makes things like Carbon Copy Cloner possible... glad to hear that Apple is not sending FireWire the way of the floppy disk just yet.
JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
Was it OSX causing the problem, or was it the first Macbook Pro hardware?
TIA...
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
What good is a 64 bit processor that can only use 3 gig of memory?
All of the previous MB/MBPs use Matsushita drives with extremely strict region control, and since I have a large collection of both R1 and R2 DVDs, this rules out a Mac for me. The Matsushita firmware will flat-out refuse to read a disc (even raw sectors) if the region doesn't match, so software tools like AnyDVD and DeCSS-based players like mplayer/VLC don't work. Also the drives' firmware code is encrypted and signed with high strength public-key crypto, which makes a RPC1 firmware hack virtually impossible (some hackers tried but gave up after multiple expensive mistakes because the drives brick themselves if any attempt to read or modify the firmware is made).
I'm most interested in finding out who makes the new 6x DL burner used in the 15" MBPs. If the new drives are NOT Matsushita then it looks like I'm getting a MBP... otherwise no way.
But does it run the entire MacOSX in 64bit mode? (Something the G5 newer really did).
Good point, I was thinking of the 7200 rpm drive which is only available in the 17" model. The 3gigs are available in all three. Side Note: Is it a tad odd they lowered the harddrive speeds to 4200 rpm in order to increase size? Granted 5400 rpm is still the default, but its odd that the 15" is now available 4200/5400 rpm models whereas previously it was available with 5400/7200 rpm models.
It's hard to compare them one on one. My wife just bought a Dell 17" lappy and it supports a higher resolution than the Apple 17". So which screen is better or worth more? I've no idea. I guess that depends on if you need the higher resolution or not. If they were identical computers in every way then we could easily determine which one costs more, but as it is, it's really anyones guess.
Also keep in mind that you can save quite a bit on a Dell through coupons or their outlet store and sometimes there are coupons that work on the outlet store to save you even more. If you don't mind a refurb unit you can save a bundle. My wifes setup was under $1500 and yes, it's refurbished but you can't get close to what she has with an Apple branded machine for that kind of money.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
I guess you have never taken a look at the Apple refurb store then. I saved $500 on my MacBook Pro and that put it under $1,500. Yes, it is a 15.4" and not a 17". But that is okay because I travel around a lot with mine and the 17" MacBook Pro was just too big.
I also physically compared the Apple 17" to the various Dell 17" offerings (easy to do since I live in Austin, TX). You mention the screen resolution as a distinguishing characteristic between the Dell your wife bought and the Apple 17". Let me mention another difference. I can fit two MacBook Pros in the same physical space of the Dell offerings (yes, there is a bit of exaggeration, but not much!). So, what is the value of a much smaller footprint for what is supposed to be a mobile computer? It's really anyones guess.
But it was 25 percent *more*
Apple have been competitive for quite some time now; I compared my Toshiba Satellite 3000-214 with a PPC PowerBook that a friend bought about the same time in 2002, and the PB was objectively equivalent or better in all ways (unless you wanted to run Windows or other x86-only software).
OK, the specs on the new MacBooks look great; however, the price difference between my Dell E1505 Core2Duo and a similarly configured MacBook is $1000.
I'm interested in hearing from people who use both Linux and Mac extensively. The majority of people I've seen recommending either Linux or Mac don't seem to know either very well. So they end writing some bullshit statements about the capabilities/incapabilities of both that just look stupid. I think they read something on the Internet somewhere, maybe five years ago, and still think it's true.
Some of the questions I have:
1) Do I need to install Linux to make it useful? I.e., on a Windows machine I install Cygwin and lots of Unix-like tools such as bash, gvim, putty, perl.
2) What's the performance under Java like? On dual proccy machines (my Opteron, Core2Duo), Java screams. Can I expect the same performance under OSX?
3) How stable is it. Macs are traditionally easy to use, but as I've owned dozens of Macs (and used to sell them too) I can attest that they were not the most stable machines out there (up until the first OSX spin). But browsing the knowledge bases and user forums (the BEST place for info) I see lots of issues.
4) How much Free software is available? Can GNU/Open/Free programs be compiled easily and natively? I'd think because it's more consistent than the hundreds of Linux distros, this would be true...
5) How solid is the workmanship. Hey, I get mocked at work because of my Dell, but it was cheap and it's fast. That's usually all I need. My Thinkpad is better built, but the $600 price difference was not worth it. What makes the Mac worth the extra $1K?
6) How fast is it? Remember, I used to own lots of Macs. I know that the PowerPC Macs were not so fast in everyday usage as the equivalent Intel/AMD chips. If you quote some meaningless statistic and some Apple press release I will laugh at you because I used them on a daily basis for years. But Macs now have a new OS, new chips... On real world apps (Java, video, disk), how do they stack up?
7) How does the two-finger trackpad stack up against real buttons? I.e., it's software to emulate two physical buttons. I've not used it before. Any drawbacks?
You also forgot to take into account, all the time and money you'd wasting trying to track down iLife replacements on Windows. Out-of-the box, the bundled Apple software covers all the basics, something that the OSS community doesn't quite yet have the same consistency intergrating between apps.
Is it safe to buy a MacBook Pro now? Is this considered a version 2?
I've learned not to buy version 1 of an Apple product unless I want to get cut by the bleeding edge.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I want a small MacBookPro too, to replace my 12" G4 PowerBook.
If they release anything it'll be a 13.3", which is still better than the 15.4".
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
this hardware limitaion is the same no matter what os
Wouldn't the way to get past the 4GB limit be to just use a 64-bit arch and OS, which Merom is?
As far as I understand it, the 4GB limitation (which leads to the 3GB application maximum, since 1GB is mapped by the kernel) is basically inherent in 32-bit architectures. There are hacks, of which PAE is the largest, that allow the processor to address more than 4GB of RAM, but even then you can only have 4GB per process. (Or is it 3GB per process? I don't really understand that. It can't be more than 4, that's for sure.) The processor uses extended memory addresses when it is "talking" to the RAM, in order to use the stuff that's in excess of 4GB, but it translates those addresses into fake 32-bit addresses that it presents to running processes, so each one thinks that it's just got 4GB (or less) to itself.
PAE is basically just a hack that shoehorned a larger address space into a 32-bit architecture; if you're in 64-bit-land (as Mac OS X is), then there's no reason for PAE to exist. All processes running in 64-bit mode should see the whole address space and thus you ought to not only be able to address huge quantities of physical memory from the processor, you should be able to give 4+GB chunks to individual processes.
Apple saw this limit coming up and switched from 32 to 64 bits, at a time when a lot of people derided them for this. They took a step backward with the early Intel Macs, but now they're getting most of their product line back there. Even if it is technically a hardware limitation and not software that creates the 3GB/4GB limit, since Windows' lackluster support for 64-bit is one of the reasons why ia32 is still "standard," it should get some portion of the blame.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Interesting, you run Unigraphics, SolidWorks and Hypermesh. How is your 3D performance without 3d hardware acceleration (in Parallels)? I'm just curios, because I plan a similar setup for near future.