Slashdot Mirror
MacBook Pro Gets Santa Rosa Chipset, LED Screen
frdmfghtr writes "TechNewsWorld is reporting that Apple has updated the MacBook Pro line with the Santa Rosa chipset from Intel. In addition, Apple is also introducing mercury-free displays with some models. 'When Apple presented new editions of its MacBook line last month, the company excluded the latest Intel Centrino chips, dubbed "Santa Rosa," which had been released just days prior. The chips have found their way into Apple's new high-end MacBook Pro notebooks, which the company revealed Tuesday. Certain models use mercury-free displays, falling in line with the company's recent ecological promises.'"
Apple didn't "surrender" to Greenpeace.
Apple simply issued a statement about its product environmental plans, among other things.
Numerous other vendors were "greener" by Greenpeace standards because they had a public "environmental plan", or even a "plan to have a plan", whereas Apple was silent on futures as it relates to future products, as it always is.
Perhaps Jobs thought it pragmatic to offer its plan publicly so that it would stop getting hammered by Greenpeace as having one of the worst environmental commitments in the industry, when in reality it has one of the best (sure, sure, cue the "but so-and-so is better/first/whatever than Apple is such-and-such category" comments). And besides, I thought it was actions, not lip service about possible future directions, that actually mattered?
But the bottom line is Apple didn't "surrender"; it just published what its already-existing environmental plans were. If you call that a "surrender", then, hey, wave the white flag, Apple.
Also, while Apple folks and other tech-savvy folks may know the Intel-based Macs run Windows, why does the news article not even mention that? ...bears repeating.
Oh, come on. Anyone even remotely considering buying a Mac can read all about its ability to run Windows programs on Apple's website. Given the fact that all new Macs have been able to do this for a year and a half now, it's not exactly news anymore. And it's not as if there has been a shortage of coverage of this ability, either. There's a difference between "bears repeating" and "repeating ad nauseam".
When I bought my MacBook (in January), I was a little wary of the idea of share video/system RAM, but it actually makes sense if you're not doing 3D work. Why carry around a bunch of RAM for your display if you're only going to render 2D windows with text and images? I've even played a few 3D games on it, and it performs acceptably, though has to work pretty hard and gets quite hot. Plugging in a 1680 x 1050 additional screen was no problem and it looks great for photos/videos.
Seriously, if you're a gamer, get a desktop; if you're a 3D artist, get a MacBook Pro; but if you're someone who wants a fully-featured laptop for $1500, just give up on your 'I have to have the pro level gear' attitude and get the black MacBook. You'll be glad you did.
For a lot of reasons, some of us like to have just one computer that can be used for everything. I'd rather have a macbook pro that can play games/do 3d work AND be useful as a mobile computer, than have a macbook that I have to sync up with a gaming PC at home and a desktop at work. To me, the bet thing about laptop is how much it simplifies things to have all my crap in one place. I'm willing to sacrifice a few frames per second for that.
The fact that a Mac comes with everything you need to edit movies and photos and turn the result into DVDs distinguishes it from every other computer, and hence is noteworthy.
Yes. And that's fine.
The fact that it can run Windows does not.
The fact that a *Mac* easily/natively/seamlessly runs Windows doesn't "distinguish" it from other computers, and that's exactly the point. And it does distinguish it from every other Mac for the over-two-decades before Intel-based Macs started shipping (horridly slow emulation aside, no matter how well it was done).
And as I said elsewhere, the fact that Macs can now run Windows is the single biggest reason people are buying Macs in many markets, especially education, research, and government, and there are still many people who don't understand that, Yes, Macs Really Can Run Windows.
It was at least worth a passing sentence in the article.
For me, the best bit is that they ditched ATI for nVidia. I was planning on getting a regular MacBook in order to avoid ATI, but now I can go with the Pro.
(ATI's drivers are teh suck, on OS X as well as Linux.)
((Opinions mine, not IBM's.))
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Mull over that one.
I write this as a life-long environmentalist, Sierra Club member, and huge liberal.
Greenpeace is evil.
They rate companies not based on their impact on the environment, but rather what they say they will do at some future point. Their website rates Apple last, not because they polute or because they're killing baby seals, but because they refuse to tell Greenpeace what they're doing. We now know that Apple was innovating in a green way, they just didn't brag about their future plans. Despite this, Greenpeace still rates Apple as the worst company in the list.
Meanwhile, companies are rated 'good' based on their statements, and not their actions.
Greenpeace was not trying to get elected to office, true, but they are raising money. And that's what drives the organization these days, not saving the planet.
coyote
ron lussier / lenscraft / fine art giclee prints/ sausalito / ca