Comments on: Apple debuts 17-inch MacBook Pro
Company expands screen size of its Intel-based notebook line. New laptop weighs 6.8 pounds, to cost $2,799.
Photos: Apple's 17-inch MacBook Pro
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- China arrests thousands in Web porn crackdown
January 2, 2010 6:26 PM PST
- Application packaging for cloud computing: A proposal
January 2, 2010 4:56 PM PST
- When policemen are caught looking at Web porn
January 2, 2010 4:16 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
perhaps next time I do get a computer I will get a portable...
We'll see.
perhaps next time I do get a computer I will get a portable...
We'll see.
NOTHING comes close.
Watch and weep Dell fanboys.
illegally burning DVDs at the fullest of quality, and the lord extends
our sharing possibilities with most speedious FireWire 800
connection, and finally, praiseth the lord for delivering a screen of
such holiness, as this iconic blessing from above containeth 67%
more holy white light than the last, with resolutions of such to
match thy mighty 20" Apple Display. Praise the lord! Praise my lord
Jobs!
Of course, your alternative is nothing...
What a selection! Thanks Steve!!!
NOTHING comes close.
Watch and weep Dell fanboys.
illegally burning DVDs at the fullest of quality, and the lord extends
our sharing possibilities with most speedious FireWire 800
connection, and finally, praiseth the lord for delivering a screen of
such holiness, as this iconic blessing from above containeth 67%
more holy white light than the last, with resolutions of such to
match thy mighty 20" Apple Display. Praise the lord! Praise my lord
Jobs!
Of course, your alternative is nothing...
What a selection! Thanks Steve!!!
MacBook Pro to be much faster than the Powerbook which it
replaces.
differences are based on the spec.org system and all figures are
accurate. These aren't 'real world' figures, these are raw
computing figures. Look elsewhere on the Apple site and you
will see real world figures like Logic, Modo, aperture and Final
Cut figures. The only reason the results that your so called 'real
world' test come up negative is because the PowerPC and Core
duo chips are different architecture, one being RISC based, the
other build on x86 platform, respectively. And as such, to
compare the processors can only work if both applications are
running natively, that is programmed for the chip architecture.
When you do run these applications side by side for 'real world'
testing you must use two native applications or face biased
results. The problem arises when not all the software for Intel
macs is native yet, for example, Photoshop. At least 25% of Mac
software is now UB (Universal binary - containing the code for
both RICS and x86 chips), with a further 70% of software is able
to run on the intel hardware due to a mac program called
Rosetta which converts the RISC instructions to x86 to provide
compatibility, at the expense of speed. Any application tested
under Rosetta should be ignored because it would not make
sense to test the speed of something that is just designed to
make everything work until an x86 or UB version comes out.
bashes first 1) need to check the facts -- Barefeats is totally
independent (in fact if you actually take time to visit their site,
you'll see that they do more than their fair share of Apple
Critiquing and 2) Apple's ad says "up to 5 times as fast" -- not
in all tasks, but in some, up to.
Tyson is also right in that you guys appear pretty foolish to
millions thanks to the power of the internet.
DJO
MacBook Pro to be much faster than the Powerbook which it
replaces.
differences are based on the spec.org system and all figures are
accurate. These aren't 'real world' figures, these are raw
computing figures. Look elsewhere on the Apple site and you
will see real world figures like Logic, Modo, aperture and Final
Cut figures. The only reason the results that your so called 'real
world' test come up negative is because the PowerPC and Core
duo chips are different architecture, one being RISC based, the
other build on x86 platform, respectively. And as such, to
compare the processors can only work if both applications are
running natively, that is programmed for the chip architecture.
When you do run these applications side by side for 'real world'
testing you must use two native applications or face biased
results. The problem arises when not all the software for Intel
macs is native yet, for example, Photoshop. At least 25% of Mac
software is now UB (Universal binary - containing the code for
both RICS and x86 chips), with a further 70% of software is able
to run on the intel hardware due to a mac program called
Rosetta which converts the RISC instructions to x86 to provide
compatibility, at the expense of speed. Any application tested
under Rosetta should be ignored because it would not make
sense to test the speed of something that is just designed to
make everything work until an x86 or UB version comes out.
bashes first 1) need to check the facts -- Barefeats is totally
independent (in fact if you actually take time to visit their site,
you'll see that they do more than their fair share of Apple
Critiquing and 2) Apple's ad says "up to 5 times as fast" -- not
in all tasks, but in some, up to.
Tyson is also right in that you guys appear pretty foolish to
millions thanks to the power of the internet.
DJO
I prefer the cost-effectiveness of a Wintel-Desktop machines.
Go price out a Dell 17 inch that weighs the same.. offers usb2
firewire 400, 800, has a built-in iSight, a 120g hd.. and all of the
software you get with an Apple.. then come back with your results.
is it cost effective to buy a machine than can run one
mainstream OS or two?
Quite.
Macs run OS X and Windows and all their apps.
Ever heard of Boot Camp? It's the most important IT release in
10 years, but as usual the world is slow to realise it. You will
see.
I had to buy an HP laptop for my department (IT insists on HP
laptop) and I bought one that was at least as good as my Mac
PowerBook. I did get one that was pretty comparable to
PowerBooks at the time. It had an item or two that you couldn't
get at that time on a PowerBook (802.11A, and a 7200 rpm
drive).
Guess what? The PC laptop cost $1,000 MORE! And I still prefer
the PowerBook, because OS X makes me more productive.
Mac users on this forum aren't have the zealots of folks like you
throwing ludicrous claims around that aren't true. So get off
your high horse.
exactly the same specs. Apple's is actually cheaper. A Dell XPS was
able to most closely spec match that of Apple's and the price came
to $3494.00 hmmm oh and lets not forget Apple's laptop has a
web cam, firewire 400 and 800 ports, and iLife software.
MacBook Pro 17": 2.16GHz Core Duo, 1GB DDR2 RAM (1
SODIMM), FW 400 + 800, USB 2, built-in camera, Bluetooth 2.0,
802.11g, 120GB HD, 8x DL DVD+/-R, remote control, 256MB
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600
= $2799
Dell XPS M1710 (I don't know much about Dells so if this was a
bad choice, too bad): 2.16GHz Core Duo, 1GB DDR2 RAM (2
SODIMM), Win XP Pro, 100GB HD, 8x DL DVD+/-R, no remote,
256MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900GS, Bluetooth 2, 802.11g, no
built-in camera, USB 2, FW 400
= $3513
Explain to me why I'm spending $800 more on a Dell computer
when I can run Windows and Mac OS X on a comparable
PowerBook? (and the Dell takes up two of my memory slots)
Dell or such is simply that I want to use Mac OS X, not because the
hardware is that different, although they do look nicer and last
longer than most PC-machines. (They also have better quiality and
customer service, check out Consumer Reports numbers about
reliability and support).
To simply compare hardware specs simply misses the point.
or Gateway then you will see that the Macs arent really all that
expensive.
Period.
I use 'em all for 20 years: Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.
They work better, I produce more, I get paid more.
End of issue for me.
I prefer the cost-effectiveness of a Wintel-Desktop machines.
Go price out a Dell 17 inch that weighs the same.. offers usb2
firewire 400, 800, has a built-in iSight, a 120g hd.. and all of the
software you get with an Apple.. then come back with your results.
is it cost effective to buy a machine than can run one
mainstream OS or two?
Quite.
Macs run OS X and Windows and all their apps.
Ever heard of Boot Camp? It's the most important IT release in
10 years, but as usual the world is slow to realise it. You will
see.
I had to buy an HP laptop for my department (IT insists on HP
laptop) and I bought one that was at least as good as my Mac
PowerBook. I did get one that was pretty comparable to
PowerBooks at the time. It had an item or two that you couldn't
get at that time on a PowerBook (802.11A, and a 7200 rpm
drive).
Guess what? The PC laptop cost $1,000 MORE! And I still prefer
the PowerBook, because OS X makes me more productive.
Mac users on this forum aren't have the zealots of folks like you
throwing ludicrous claims around that aren't true. So get off
your high horse.
exactly the same specs. Apple's is actually cheaper. A Dell XPS was
able to most closely spec match that of Apple's and the price came
to $3494.00 hmmm oh and lets not forget Apple's laptop has a
web cam, firewire 400 and 800 ports, and iLife software.
MacBook Pro 17": 2.16GHz Core Duo, 1GB DDR2 RAM (1
SODIMM), FW 400 + 800, USB 2, built-in camera, Bluetooth 2.0,
802.11g, 120GB HD, 8x DL DVD+/-R, remote control, 256MB
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600
= $2799
Dell XPS M1710 (I don't know much about Dells so if this was a
bad choice, too bad): 2.16GHz Core Duo, 1GB DDR2 RAM (2
SODIMM), Win XP Pro, 100GB HD, 8x DL DVD+/-R, no remote,
256MB NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900GS, Bluetooth 2, 802.11g, no
built-in camera, USB 2, FW 400
= $3513
Explain to me why I'm spending $800 more on a Dell computer
when I can run Windows and Mac OS X on a comparable
PowerBook? (and the Dell takes up two of my memory slots)
Dell or such is simply that I want to use Mac OS X, not because the
hardware is that different, although they do look nicer and last
longer than most PC-machines. (They also have better quiality and
customer service, check out Consumer Reports numbers about
reliability and support).
To simply compare hardware specs simply misses the point.
or Gateway then you will see that the Macs arent really all that
expensive.
Period.
I use 'em all for 20 years: Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.
They work better, I produce more, I get paid more.
End of issue for me.
and Sony?!?
You pay a premium for a nicer product. So what if the specs are
similar, but the MacBook costs more/less then the new Dell?
I could compare the specs of the Toyota Avalon to a Lexus and
however similar they are, the Lexus will always cost more
because it is a premium product with alot of extra attention to
detail, and a better fit & finish.
You also have to keep in mind that this thing is a slick piece of
industrial design, one inch thin, and it's constructed out of
annodized aluminum... when every other machine on the market
is plastic. Are you getting the picture?
Please don't forget that you're not only getting the peace of
mind that OS X brings, but you can also run Windows (and now
Linux) too.
When will people stop bringing up this price debate? You pay
more for a product that you feel is "better". The End.
MANY Toyota parts make up the Lexus!
as for AppleIntelMac being worth the $, so be it!
Madison Ave will sell us all a higher priced gadget!
Do we need it? Maybe, maybe not...
If you can't afford a Mercedes, and nothing else will do, then WALK!
and Sony?!?
You pay a premium for a nicer product. So what if the specs are
similar, but the MacBook costs more/less then the new Dell?
I could compare the specs of the Toyota Avalon to a Lexus and
however similar they are, the Lexus will always cost more
because it is a premium product with alot of extra attention to
detail, and a better fit & finish.
You also have to keep in mind that this thing is a slick piece of
industrial design, one inch thin, and it's constructed out of
annodized aluminum... when every other machine on the market
is plastic. Are you getting the picture?
Please don't forget that you're not only getting the peace of
mind that OS X brings, but you can also run Windows (and now
Linux) too.
When will people stop bringing up this price debate? You pay
more for a product that you feel is "better". The End.
MANY Toyota parts make up the Lexus!
as for AppleIntelMac being worth the $, so be it!
Madison Ave will sell us all a higher priced gadget!
Do we need it? Maybe, maybe not...
If you can't afford a Mercedes, and nothing else will do, then WALK!
Helllooooooooooo...Is there anybody in there?
Also, the comments on a new product release (chip upgrade- whoppee) are equal to or more than the comments on a major piece of legislation that could effect us all?
Also, the comments on a new product release (chip upgrade- whoppee) are equal to or more than the comments on a major piece of legislation that could effect us all?
pasture. The only replacement will be a 13.3" Wide Screen
Macbook/iBook replacement.
pasture. The only replacement will be a 13.3" Wide Screen
Macbook/iBook replacement.
- oh my god, everytime!
- by thebignoticeboard.com April 24, 2006 5:47 PM PDT
- Can somebody just talk about the article!! For god's sake,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Wrong.
- by TyTyson April 25, 2006 1:10 AM PDT
- People should be given the chance of escaping mediocrety and
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (241 Comments)everytime an apple article pops up, the bickering begins.
People who use PCs / Linux : Don't write anything if you don't
give two hoots about the MacBook.
People who use Macs : Just talk amongst yourselves and don't
rise to the bait.
I personally use OS X. I love it, switched over a year ago, and
never looked back. If people who use PCs are too ignorant to try
something else, then that's their problem. If they are happy
using Win XP / Linux, then let them carry on.
It doesn't matter which is better, everyone has their own
opinion. But everytime an apple article comes up, i end up
reading the same posts over and over again. Dell this, Alienware
that. It doesn't matter, each to their own.
P.S. I do consider myself a Mac 'fanatic'.
blissful ignorance. Don't be so selfish.
Even peecee users should be given a chance.
:)