“It has been said that buyers should generally avoid the first year of a new model car, Version 1.0 of just about any application and most Rev. A computers — especially Rev. A computers,” Ken Mingis reports for Computerworld.
“Well, if you held off buying the first Intel-based versions of Apple Computer Inc.’s MacBook Pro laptops, you can safely venture forth to the nearest computer store and take one home. I base that on my hands-on experience with Apple’s latest updated consumer MacBook lineup, the recently revamped 15-in. MacBook Pro and — now, finally — the 17-in. variation of Apple’s professional laptop line,” Mingis reports.
“To paraphrase Victor Kiam, the late Gillette CEO, I liked the latest 17-in. MacBook Pro so much that I bought my own,” Mingis reports. “In case you’ve missed the latest specs on these portable workstations, the MacBook Pro — both 15-in. and 17-in. models — sport Core 2 Duo processors from Intel Corp. that are marginally faster in terms of clock speed but noticeably faster in real-world use. One factor behind that speed increase is the 4MB of dynamically allocated Level 2 cache RAM used by the new chip — twice what the Core Duo offered. It’s not a huge jump in processing power, nor would you expect it to be when moving from Rev. A to Rev. B hardware. But it’s more of an increase than Apple used to provide back in the not-so-halcyon PowerPC days.”
“When buying technology, it’s always best to try to future-proof yourself as much as possible. Apple’s 17-in. MBP is about as future-proof as they come. It offers 64-bit hardware and maybe even, eventually, 802.11n wireless networking capabilities (though 802.11g is just fine for now),” Mingis reports. “Apple is due to release its next operating system, Leopard, before spring. Once that 64-bit operating system is out, the MacBook Pro will really shine. And it’s pretty darn bright already.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Washington Times: Apple MacBook, MacBook Pro portables are ‘superb values’ – November 21, 2006
Apple now shipping 17-inch MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo units – November 13, 2006
PC Magazine Editor’s Choice: Apple Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo; best mainstream laptop – November 07, 2006
CNET: Apple MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo ‘provides great overall computing experience, at a premium price’ – November 03, 2006 (We dispute the “premium price” bit within the article)
Computerworld: Apple’s new MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo ‘one cool customer, fastest Apple laptop ever’ – November 02, 2006
Apple MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo dissection photos – October 30, 2006
Why MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo units are limited to 3 GB RAM – October 30, 2006
Apple redesigns, hides iSight indicator on MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo models – October 28, 2006
Apple does it again: New Macbook Pros much cheaper than Dell – October 25, 2006
Yager: New Apple MacBook Pro is ‘mobile landing pad for Leopard in plenty of time for Macworld Expo’ – October 24, 2006
Apple MacBook Pro notebooks go Intel Core 2 Duo; up to 39-percent faster – October 24, 2006
sounds like you still have your nose out of joint over the switch from PPC to Intel. Well, get over it! You were wrong when the change was announced, and you’re still wrong to bitch an’ whine now. The fact is that the integrated graphics chip sets on the current MacBooks is AT LEAST AS GOOD as the lame 32 MB graphics cards on the old iBooks. As long as you have enough RAM, you’re not giving up anything, certainly not for movies and the like.
As former Prez Clinton use to say, it’s time to move on…
Kate
The Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros run much cooler. 64bit applications are rare right now, but with Leopard we’ll see more. Double-precision math is (duh) faster with 64bit, typically 10-30% faster. The bigger L2 cache helps too. The new 128bit vector processing instructions of SSE3 are a big help when you use them – especially for code that was making use of the Velocity Engine of the G4/G5. The graphics system is clocked 40% faster in the 15″ MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo (versus the previous Core Duo models), it makes a big difference for games, I haven’t heard about the 17″ model yet (regarding graphics clockspeed).
Odyssey67, stop being such a dork. Go hang out at http://www.digg.com for a while, comment on some posts and get yourself massively buried, maybe you’ll get a clue.
I hardly ever look at this stupid site, digg is where to find intelligent discussions. People can “digg” other comments up or “bury” them down, when comments reach -5 they are not shown by default anymore, it’s totally democratic. This is like writing on a bathroom wall.
To quote from the really, really, really funny Brit TV show, “Big Train” episode one, series one. Did i mention it was Funny with a capitol F.
Do a YouTube search for – Big Train, tags include – hot cakes, small train, Showjumpers, postman, goodbye mr chips, jockeys or jockey or spooked them, False Athletic Start, Do you speak English, Working Class.
They are, IMO freaking’ Funny.
Or … cough, cough, you could check out my day job. as lighting Dir. on an Aussie mornings tv show “Mornings With Kerri-Anne”. clock on at 7, on air at 9. normally only one rehearsal and then do it, live. Tags under –
Dannii Minogue Can’t Sleep At Night 2006 08 17 Mornings With Kerri-Anne Hits beyond –
Out of interest, what do you other people do, that keeps you off the streets?
a) The physical addressing range limitation is a feature of the chip set (most notably the north bridge), not of the front side bus (which links the CPU with the chip set).
Apple simply can’t do anything about the limitation until Intel comes up with a new chip set (short of starting up its own chip set development which would be a massive waste of resources). Simple as that.
b) Very many people don’t care much about 3D. A good video capability is much more relevant in practice. So it would simply be a waste of money and an unnecessary drain on the battery to saddle every MacBook with an external GPU most users simply don’t need.
Yes, the old iBook GPU is faster than the new integrated one on some operations; But those where it really counts for most users are faster on the integrated one.
c) Going up from the MacBook to the MacBook Pro gives you a lot more than just a dedicated GPU; If you just want to bitch around, please, be my guest. But for anybody who really needs a MacBook Pro the price difference is simply appropriate for the whole package (separate GPU, bigger screen with higher resolution, metal case, ExpressCard slot, FireWire 800, illuminated keyboard…).
Homeboy, if Apple’s choice to go Intel is really so big an issue that you’d spend chunks of your evening bitchin’ about it, then try your luck on one of those crack-a-lackin’ Dell AMDs with Microshaft’s “stellar” 64bit XP.
The simple fact of the matter is that Apple’s Pro line of laptops beats the hell out of any Windows box available…if for nothing else than the fact that it’s not running Windows. You need to keep your head on straight and deal with reality.
Windows blows, OS X is brilliant, and as soon as high end innovation becomes feasible for CONSUMERS in terms of affordability, Apple will utilize the advancements.
The MacBook Pros are hands down the most capable laptop on the market today at their pricepoint and feature set.
Get a life…and some cheese with that whine. Prick.
The new Core 2 Duo MacBooks Pros are faster at Photoshop (yes, running as PowerPC code through Rosetta emulation) than the fastest PowerBooks ever were: http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/reviews/mbprocore2duo/index.php . They get 3.65x the framerate in Unreal Tournament 2004, they render 4-6x faster, they encode MPEG2 over 3x faster, check out the test results for yourself. The MacBook Pro utterly humiliates the PowerBook running universal applications, and it even beats it soundly running PowerPC applications.
@ Kate: Since when did you become a fan of Clinton, sweetheart? I guess that last election was more earth shaking than I thought
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
BTW – my nose is fine, thanks for asking; it’s just never been up Steve Jobs’ butt, which is why I suppose it looks so strange to you. I won’t bother getting into an argument regarding the reasons for the switch – my position is well known here, and fits the facts better than anyone else’s. Case closed AFAIC. However, I will point out that I began on this particular thread by saying, explicitly, that these new Merom Macs were finally worth the price of admission. I like em!
My only beefs are A] that Apple has a 64bit CPU that’s stuck with 32bit levels of sys memory (thanks to a crappy intel mainboard), and B] the fact that integrated graphics are NEVER AS GOOD as dedicated graphics cards of comparable generations, and not warranted for use in higher priced Macs.
You quite correctly point out the obvious – and only – advantage the MB has over the iBook’s GPU chipset; the availability of more memory. But it gives this advantage away immediately with a GPU that can’t do even the most mudane of 3D effects without tripping all over itself. The ATI’s 9600 is no cutting edge piece, but it’s much more capable than Intel’s 980, and if you and the other boneheads on here weren’t looking only at your AAPL stockprice you’d stop arguing that indisputable point.
Further, if “movies and the like” were all there was to computing, you COULD get by with the status quo. Hell, you could do quite nicely with just 512MB of main memory on a MB or iBook too (though moreso on the latter, since the GPU won’t be borrowing sys memory to do common OS GUI operations in OpenGL).
But, in case you missed it, these days Macs are sold – to consumers no less – as multimedia machines. Apple encourages you to do everything from video & photo editing, to running Windows through Parallels (a memory hog), to using BootCamp so you can play your advanced Windows games … which btw can’t run on Intel’s integrated graphics! … And if you’re a hardcore Photoshopper, or scientist using any number of specialized apps (for protein folding, or calculating gravitational effects of collapsing stars, just two examples I have some experience with) where the writers have either retired or have more to do than rewrite in XCode, then having gobs & gobs of memory available to churn through Rosetta is not merely ‘convenient’ – it’s absolutely imperative.
Frankly Kate, if you can’t see the worth of at least having the *option* of upgrading to more than 2-3GBs of main memory and having a dedictated GPU under most circumstances, let alone in the sort of environment just described (the kind Apple is actively marketing itself in), then you’re more of a Jobs Zombie than I already thought.
And that goes for “Nick” (bringing in MacWorld tests – yeah, that’s ironclad unbiased reporting there) and “ping” (saying everything I am and STILL disagreeing with me) and ‘Mr. Anonymous’ too (a big “You know what you can do with my prick?” right back at ya, homeslice). You all sound like like a pack of grouches who just woke up. And now you’re making me grouchy too. I hate being grouchy, you bastards.
And Jeeze – since when did advocating for better hardware become ‘out of the realm’ anyway? You’d think I insulted your mothers. Ask for more memory? A better GPU?? Hereasy!!! Yet that seems to be the prevalent mentality around these parts these days: “Don’t say anything perceived as negative. Don’t use your head. Just accept.” Yuck.
Say … that wasn’t you four walking off the cliff in Apple’s 1985 Mac Superbowl commerical, was it? You know – the Human Lemmings?
Yeah. I thought I saw a resemblance.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smirk” style=”border:0;” />
“But, in case you missed it, these days Macs are sold – to consumers no less – as multimedia machines.” should read:
“But, in case you missed it, these days Macs are sold – to average consumers no less – as above average multimedia machines.”
You guys get me so worked up I can’t even proofread anymore … grumblegrumble … Now go to your rooms!!!
Odyssey67: And that goes for “Nick” (bringing in MacWorld tests – yeah, that’s ironclad unbiased reporting there) and “ping” (saying everything I am and STILL disagreeing with me) and ‘Mr. Anonymous’ too (a big “You know what you can do with my prick?” right back at ya, homeslice). You all sound like like a pack of grouches who just woke up. And now you’re making me grouchy too. I hate being grouchy, you bastards.
What you’re completely missing here is that it is completely pointless playing hurt and feeling personally insulted that Apple is workign with what they’ve got at hand – and that is the current generation of CPUs with the current generation of chip sets.
Don’t like it? Don’t buy it!
Where you’re completely wrong is that failing to fully satisfy your every whim and fancy automatically disqualified the new machines for everybody else.
I’m doing pretty demanding work and I’ll still manage quite well with this generation for a good while to come. You simply seem to be oblivious to the breadth of the possible usage profiles and to what they need or don’t need.
The world is quite a bit bigger than your tiny corner you seem to be so proud of.
Have a nice day.
Odyssey67 sure has a lot to say without any sources backing him up. We show him detailed benchmarks demonstrating that the MacBook Pro kicks the everliving crap out of the PowerBook, he covers his ears and shouts “I’M NOT LISTENING!” What a dork.
Here’s another benchmark page for Odyssey67 to cry over:
http://barefeats.com/imcd3.html
It shows the Core 2 Duo iMac crushing the G5 iMac in a variety of tests.
…and here is the MacBook Core 2 Duo crushing the fastest PowerBook ever made by Apple:
http://barefeats.com/mbcd8.html
The PowerBook wins in GPU contests, the MacBook wins in everything else, including Photoshop running through Rosetta.
Just to complete the sweep, here’s the Mac Pro meeting or beating the Quad G5 PowerMac in pretty much all universal binary tests:
http://barefeats.com/quad06.html
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/08/mac-pro-benchmarks/
The dual-core G5 is a truly awesome CPU. It’s nearly as fast as an Intel Core 2 Duo at the same clockspeed. When the G5 taps into its Velocity Engine effectively, it takes a higher clockspeed Core 2 Duo to beat it, but the Core 2 Duo Macs are available at 3Ghz compared to the 2.5Ghz quad G5.
Of course, the Core 2 Duo runs SO MUCH COOLER than the dual-core G5 that the Mac Pro has a ton more room in it thanks to the massive heatsinks being replaced by little ones. Hence the greater number of drive bays, as Phil Schiller happily explained to us at the Mac Pro unveiling.
Oh yeah, and the Mac Pros cost less than the G5 workstations did.
Abandoning PowerPC was the second smartest thing Apple ever did, made possible by the smartest thing Apple ever did: make Mac OS X out of NextStep. Steve Jobs freaking rules.
You guys are obviously just looking for an argument here. Most of what your railing against I didn’t even say anything about, but whatever … I’ll play in the sandbox for a little while.
@ ping: “… it is completely pointless playing hurt and feeling personally insulted that Apple is workign with what they’ve got at hand … Don’t like it? Don’t buy it!”
Uh, I’ve already said I’m not buying it. And I’m not “playing hurt” about anything or “personally insulted” either – you guys are the ones who dragged all this personal BS into it, as most fanbois do. I’m just responding (tounge in cheek primarily). And my response now is as it was at the start; a 64bit CPU strangled with a substandard mobo is NOT something I will pay for. Apple didn’t have to take it, anymore than they had to switch CPU architectures frankly – it was a choice they made. Let them pay for it. Apple has all the expertise in house needed to either design their own board OR buy a better one from any of the many, many x86 boardmakers now available to them. So the mobo issue was, I repeat, not inevitable. And thus, for me, not excusable in their highest priced, highest perfomance laptop either. And so my money does stay in my pocket for now. Clear?
@ Nick: “Odyssey67 sure has a lot to say without any sources backing him up. We show him detailed benchmarks demonstrating that the MacBook Pro kicks the everliving crap out of the PowerBook, he covers his ears and shouts “I’M NOT LISTENING!” What a dork.”
Again with the drama … >heavy sigh<
Look, your initial vaunted “sources” amounted to ONE site – MacWorld – which is not reknown for either it’s testing regime or it’s impartiality. So get off your high horse Woodward; your reporting was shoddy.
The stuff you’ve since posted is better – and yes I’ve seen it all before (Google’s a wonderful thing, which is why I don’t typically bother with a lot of links – it’s all out there to be found pretty easily). However, your assertions, typically, either aren’t backed up by the data OR don’t refute the issue you began arguing with me about; that the graphics capability of the MB is substandard. In fact, your own comments avoid it completely. I quote:
“It shows the Core 2 Duo iMac crushing the G5 iMac in a variety of tests.”
Who was talking about G5 iMacs? My beef is with integrated graphics in the MB. Besides – considering the G5 is one core down on the on the CoreDuo2, which also has faster memory & a better GPU, what exactly did you expect? If you look closely at those charts, the first thing that comes to my mind is ‘why isn’t the G5 being beat worse?’
“… here’s the Mac Pro meeting or beating the Quad G5 PowerMac in pretty much all universal binary tests …”
And when did I mention the Quad either?? But I’ll state the obvious here too – a newer computer SHOULD be beating an older one! Especially considering all the x86 optimizations that have gone into UB code since the switch began.
“…and here is the MacBook Core 2 Duo crushing the fastest PowerBook ever made by Apple:
http://barefeats.com/mbcd8.html
The PowerBook wins in GPU contests, the MacBook wins in everything else, including Photoshop running through Rosetta.”
First of all only the latest fastest MBPro beats the old PowerBook (which is down 600mhz, isn’t 64bit, has no SATA, slower sys memory, MUCH less cache, and has a less advanced GPU) running Photoshop through Rosetta … and even then not by much. Meanwhile, the slower MBPro and MB both get beat by the PB in Photoshop. So, if I’m a graphics pro, your saying I should spend $2-3k for a slower machine using my money app? No way.
Second … you just admitted my point! “The Powerbook wins in GPU contests …” WTF dude – can’t you read your own writing?
The exact quote from BareFeets: “BAD NEWS … The Intel GMA950 integrated GPU is a party pooper… Whether you are doing serious apps with Core Image effects or playing your favorite 3D accelerated game, the 13″ MacBook C2D is going to spoil your day.” Case fucking closed.
Except that you keep going.
cont…
@ Nick: “The dual-core G5 is truly awesome … nearly as fast as an Intel Core 2 Duo at the same clockspeed. When the G5 taps into its Velocity Engine … it takes a higher clockspeed Core 2 Duo to beat it, but the Core 2 Duo Macs are … at 3Ghz compared to 2.5Ghz … runs SO MUCH COOLER … that the Mac Pro has a ton more room in it thanks to the massive heatsinks being replaced…”
Ok, we’re back talking about the Quad – no more MB graphics. Fine, but FW we’re be getting off topic now.
Here you validate much of what I’ve said many times about the switch; it wasn’t necessary, not for performance at least. Not that the d/c G5 in the Quad was the future, but A] there were versions of the d/c G5 Apple DIDN’T use (the cooler single core FX in the iMac had a d/c cousin – Apple just didn’t pick it up) that would have allowed the same interior redesign as Woodcrest did, months sooner. And more signifigantly B] the recently introduced Power6.
This CPU is an evo of the 970/G5 Apple-centric design, with a some Power5 sprinkled in. Pwr6 was hand tweaked by IBM (not their std automated design process) & specifically addressed difficencies Apple bitched most about w/G5 – clockspeed, branch prediction, & integer performance. It’s materials tech is so advanced that at 4-5Ghz it still has the same power/thermal characteristics as current Power5s & 970FXs. That means if it were throttled back to the same 2Ghz range as Merom, it would likely be more efficient & cooler than Merom (let alone Woodcrest at 3Ghz). In fact, both Pwr6 ‘Light’ (w/out server centric features) and ‘UL’ (ultra low voltage) versions were part of IBM’s original plan, but are apparently up in the air now. I imagine, w/out Apple around, certain priorities ‘aren’t’ anymore. And lastly, IBM’s typical unit pricing is much better than Intel’s, no matter how favored you are. Example: M$ pays about $75/chip for their XBox360s – Intel sells only the lowliest Celerons & Netburst Pentiums at that price.
So it bears emphasizing again that Apple’s present hardware offerings – as good as Merom is, and/or as bad as Intel’s chipsets are – are the result of choices Apple made. In this case IBM was working on their probs all along, Jobs knew it, & had dual core options in both upgraded G4s and G5s to tide him over till IBM’s labor (an Apple-ized Pwr6) came to fruition. On the other hand, they also knew of the higher unit costs of going to Intel (making integrated graphics adoption necessary to keep margins intact), and they knew of the FSB issues Intel says won’t be solved til late ’07 early ’08 (neither AMD or IBM have such issues, btw).
Now, the way I see it, my main responsiblity as a consumer is not to say “Well, oops – you made a choice there Apple that doesn’t suit my needs, but I’ll buy anyway”, any more than it is to cut my nose off to spite my face and NOT buy, as some sort of ‘punishment’ for ‘hurting my feelings’, once they get it right. I don’t operate from either of those premises.
Yes, moving to Intel (if not x86) had downsides; all but the most expensive Macs (where the margins absorb the component cost increases) cost more, some software still isn’t optimized, etc … And I’ll never like having TPM ‘spy chips’ on my computer. Whether Apple decides to use them or not, a potential for abuse exists with Intel kit that right now doesn’t with IBM or AMD. And last, I’m not so sure Intel’s basket is where Apple should’ve put ALL its eggs in – their record for innovation and staying ahead of the curve is spotty (FSB issues shine brightly here), plus their SEC filings look horrible.
Still, with all that, I always intended to buy the new stuff when it was worth my while, as always. I love Macs, and want to support the only computer company making ‘computing’ the way it should be. But right now I don’t see how a more expensive entry-level MB (compared to the iBook it replaces), with a good 64bit chip that’s hamstrung by limited memory expansion and god-awful graphics, is in my long term interest. Once that changes, I’ll switch too – that’s where I’m at. Meantime, I do believe an objective assessment would lead many people, in the market for a MB or MBPro, to also seriously question those difficiencies, depending on needs. And I certainly advise people I consult based on that as my starting point: Wait, for improvements in x & y if you can. If not, Merom (not Yonah) is worthy.
Anyway, I’m done. Given the subject matter, this went far afield. But hey … that’s life on the net for ya.
BTW, since you like links, here’s a few talking about the Power6 if your interested/don’t think I know what I’m talking about:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT101606194731
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT121905001634&p=3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6
MDN Magic Word was “think”.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Oh my.
Sorry, but IBM was not forthcoming with a mobile CPU, however much you’re whining about it – and your imaginations about how simple it supposedly was to “just slap a few components together” to create any dream machine you liked are just utterly grotesque.
Reality is that every technical device is a compromise. Whether you personally see your own favourite features matched or not is actually relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
A very large (and rising) number of users see the current Merom machines as the “sweet spot” to take the plunge for an Intel Mac – I myself among them.
Your crying about the 3GB “limitation” is simply immaterial or of minor importance for the vast majority of users, including professional users like myself.
I’ve just run the first tests on my MBP2.33, and it turns out that for my particular application the MBP is actually more than 2.5 times as fast as my huge PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz (the much larger cache obviously plays a major role here).
Sure, it’s an older machine, but it’s still not a bad thing at all to shrink a large tower to a laptop and gain a performance factor of more than two in the process. IBM was nowhere near providing a comparable shrink and power increase. Sorry.
Your complaints about the smaller MacBook are simply pointless – either you need the power, then you’ll simply get a MacBook Pro. Or you don’t and everybody can simply ignore your whining.
As for the memory – use it or leave it. Chipsets don’t grow on trees, so if you can’t live without 8GB RAM in your laptop, you’re welcome to wait for a good few months again.
waiting MACBOOK PRO use VGA NVIDIA QUADRO like others mobile workstation.