Slashdot Mirror
Apple Announces New MacBook, Pro, Air
Steve Jobs just got through announcing new MacBook lines in Cupertino. The MacBook, the Pro, and the Air all got revved. The old line of plastic-body MacBooks drops in price by $100, to $999. The new MacBooks have a metal body and multi-touch trackpad, just like the new Pros. The Pro features two NVidia graphics chips. Quoting Jobs: "With the 9400M, you get 5 hours of battery life, with the 9600M GT you get four hours of battery life. You choose." In summary: "We're building both [MacBook and Pro] in a whole new way. From a slab of aluminum to a notebook. New graphics. New trackpad, the best we've ever built. And LED-backlit displays that are far brighter, instant on, far more environmentally responsible." They are shipping today and should be in stores tomorrow. Oh, and one more thing: Steve's blood pressure is 110/70.
I really don't care if my macbook pro is made of a single block of aluminium or not. I do however care about non-glossy screens, and not having to lug around a connector for a mini display port. Both of these, however, seem to be a thing of the past. In addition, I think the black border around the screen is ugly as hell.
Is anyone's interest peaked by the new dual video cards? Especially with OpenCL possibly being the 'next big thing'. I'd be very interested in Photoshop CS4 benchmarks too.
Second, is this the next big competitive 'edge' (now that everything is dual core). Apple was one of the first companies to put dual processors in consumer products. I remember debating between a Dual 800 MHz or a Single 866 when I went to college and ended up spending the extra on the dual. I swore to myself then that I'd never go back to a single processor. Now everything is dual core, dual processor, quad core, etc.
Mr. Graphic Designer wants older matte screens because they supposedly reproduce colors better (the same reason they held onto CRTs well after LCDs debuted).
I'm Mr. Dabbles in Graphic Design Person. You need to remove the "supposedly" in your statement above, especially when it comes to CRTs vs LCDs. High end LCDs are almost as good as decent CRTs, mostly because LCDs significantly change color with viewing angle. When you're worried about graphic design or photography, getting the color right is really important, and even slight color shifts are unacceptable.
I'm also Mr. Professional Visual Neuroscientist Who Does Some Colorimetric Work. No serious colorimetric work is yet being done with LCDs for the very same reason: a green dot needs to be exactly the same green whether it's presented in the middle of the screen or at the edge. With CRTs that's the case. With LCDs, assuming the viewing position is the same, the viewing angle changes slightly between those two screen locations, and the color is altered.
I had cause to use a glossy screen laptop recently. Couldn't wait to get rid of it, as I was distracted by my own reflection, or a reflection of the things behind me, or the lights, or whatever else was at the right (or wrong?) angle. Until LCD screens get some really good antiglare coating, matte is the way to go.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Why?
I'm not trolling, honest question. Why are so many manufacturers going to glossy LCDs? Cheaper to build, what? 'Cause every end user I support hates the things. Except one, and he always likes to be different anyway.
What benefit, real or imagined, do hardware makers think/believe/want us to believe, is to be had from glossy screens?
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
A lot of people use their laptops as portable media players - watching movies on the couch, looking at pictures, etc. Glossy screens give the impression of better colors for that kind of use, so they're increasingly used in laptops in the consumer market.
I'm kinda disappointed to read about this, frankly. I'd at least like the option to not have one, cause they're fucking terrible.
I personally love my glossy screen and would never again consider a matte option.
For one, glossy screens are easier to clean. With laptops, it's somewhat inevitable that the screen will get fingerprints on it. With a matte screen, you need a specific wipe/spray to clean. My glossy display cleans easily with a damp paper towel. Glossy screens also showcase vibrant colors better than matte screens. This is probably why so many manufacturers are pushing glossy...under the right conditions, stuff just looks better on a glossy screen. But I would bet that Apple is moving to glossy in preparation for laptops where the screen is touch-sensitive (ala iPhone/iPod).
And having used one for the past year, the glare issue is really a red herring. I don't notice it. In fact I find the glossy screens more usable in sunlight conditions since they appear brighter than the matte. I actually find it really hard to believe your statement, "every end user I support hates the things" based on my experience. It's really hard to fathom that anyone who has actually used a glossy display for any serious amount of time wouldn't prefer it to a matte display.
No it can't. It can tell which fingers are touching it. But it cannot tell the difference between pressing with your right finger or your left finger if both fingers are in contact. To perform a right click with the Mighty Mouse you have to lift up with your left finger and click with the right.
I didn't believe you so I grabbed my mighty mouse and right clicked: worked fine, no issue. Then I realized that my left finger was slightly lifted. I actually had to concentrate to keep my left finger down while I right clicked to see the issue you are complaining about.
I think you've missed the point then.
The new metallic body has all sorts of "function" in it. It's lighter AND stronger at the same time. I don't know about you, but have you ever picked up a cheap plastic dell? Next time you do, hold it from the two ends and give it a twist. It'll scare you. Now try that with the old Macbook Air (the first laptop to use this unibody design).
Doesn't twist does it?!
I'm more than willing to pay a little extra for that "style" (or "function" to some people .. like me!)
That's just 1 example. Was MagSafe just stylish too? Ask my brother-in-law and his wife how many times that magsafe saved their laptops with their two kids running around the house.
It's quite obvious to me, and I'm surprised by the inability of slashdot'ers today to "think" about it. Apple now uses commodity hardware. You can get the same crap in a Dell right? So how on earth would they differentiate themselves by just playing the specs game? They can't. And it doesn't maker any sense to. There are umpteen companies that already do. What they do is innovate AROUND those standard parts when they construct a consumer device.
Hence, you get things like MagSafe and Glass trackpad (which I'm super excited about, because if it's anything like my iPhone, I'm gonna love it) and now the unibody!
If another person compares a Dell to this, I'm gonna puke. Seriously, until you find a Dell with the above features, please don't bother. If you're too cheap to pay for the extra features, then great, just say so, don't try to convince me that your $200 cheaper Dell is the same, cuz trust me, in a day to day usage test, it'll fail more epically (is that even a word?) than you can imagine.
P.S. Have you ever seen the design of the Apple power brick with the interchange prongs/cord? If you haven't. That alone is worth the price difference. Why other laptop manufactures can't make a better power brick is beyond me.
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak