April 24, 2006 7:33 AM PDT

Apple debuts 17-inch MacBook Pro

Related Stories

Apple ships MacBook Pro with speedier chips

February 14, 2006

Apple sees 'pause' in Mac sales

January 18, 2006
Apple Computer on Monday debuted a 17-inch MacBook Pro, expanding the screen size of its latest notebook line.

MacBook Pro, which was announced in January and features Intel's Duo dual-core chip, is currently available with a 15-inch screen. The new notebooks will begin shipping next week, Apple said in a statement.

The 17-inch MacBook Pro weighs 6.8 pounds and is expected to carry a retail price of $2,799, according to Apple. Its features will be similar to those found in the 15-inch MacBook Pro, such as a built-in iSight video camera for mobile video conferencing and iChat AV for recording a video podcast or iMovie.

Apple notes that its 17-inch MacBook Pro will feature a 2.16- gigahertz Intel Duo processor, allowing it to run up to five times faster than its PowerBook G4. The notebook will also offer 1 gigabyte of the speedier memory, 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM, which can be expanded up to 2GB.

"The 17-inch MacBook Pro delivers the speed and screen area of a professional desktop system," Philip Schiller, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement.

Click here to watch a video of the MacBook Pro in action.

See more CNET content tagged:
Apple MacBook Pro, Apple MacBook, Apple Computer, notebook computer, Intel

241 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
I'd love one of these
But I am comfortable with my desktop machine... I do think,
perhaps next time I do get a computer I will get a portable...

We'll see.
Posted by NeverFade (402 comments )
Reply Link Flag
WHAT AN IDIOT!!!
Who would be comforatable with an original 1984 Mac in place of Apple's Macbook. Jeff, you're a dinosaur.
Posted by phoenix8603 (79 comments )
Link Flag
I'd love one of these
But I am comfortable with my desktop machine... I do think,
perhaps next time I do get a computer I will get a portable...

We'll see.
Posted by NeverFade (402 comments )
Reply Link Flag
WHAT AN IDIOT!!!
Who would be comforatable with an original 1984 Mac in place of Apple's Macbook. Jeff, you're a dinosaur.
Posted by phoenix8603 (79 comments )
Link Flag
The Best Mac OS X and Windows Laptop money can buy.
Run both OS beautifully on this amazing piece of hardware.

NOTHING comes close.

Watch and weep Dell fanboys.
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Praise the lord!
Hallelujah! The lord saveth our souls with thy dual layer device for
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!
Posted by timeforhell666 (27 comments )
Link Flag
Of the 2 availible...you are correct
Yes, I completely agree. It is the best OS X/XP laptop money can buy...
Of course, your alternative is nothing...
What a selection! Thanks Steve!!!
Posted by cryhavoc2112 (41 comments )
Link Flag
The Best Mac OS X and Windows Laptop money can buy.
Run both OS beautifully on this amazing piece of hardware.

NOTHING comes close.

Watch and weep Dell fanboys.
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Praise the lord!
Hallelujah! The lord saveth our souls with thy dual layer device for
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!
Posted by timeforhell666 (27 comments )
Link Flag
Of the 2 availible...you are correct
Yes, I completely agree. It is the best OS X/XP laptop money can buy...
Of course, your alternative is nothing...
What a selection! Thanks Steve!!!
Posted by cryhavoc2112 (41 comments )
Link Flag
Five times faster, eh?
Is this the same scale that claimed that the Intel chips were five times faster than their PowerPC cousins only to have real-world benchmarking show that the speed increase was minimal to negative?
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Link Flag
Benchmarks are unanimously faster...
You know not of what you speak. Every benchmark shows the
MacBook Pro to be much faster than the Powerbook which it
replaces.
Posted by chabig83 (535 comments )
Link Flag
spec rates
if you haven't bothered to read much lately all performance
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.
Posted by timeforhell666 (27 comments )
Link Flag
Tyson Right on This One
I am jumping in the ring to backup Tyson on this one. You
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
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
Five times faster, eh?
Is this the same scale that claimed that the Intel chips were five times faster than their PowerPC cousins only to have real-world benchmarking show that the speed increase was minimal to negative?
Posted by Christopher Hall (1205 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Benchmarks are unanimously faster...
You know not of what you speak. Every benchmark shows the
MacBook Pro to be much faster than the Powerbook which it
replaces.
Posted by chabig83 (535 comments )
Link Flag
spec rates
if you haven't bothered to read much lately all performance
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.
Posted by timeforhell666 (27 comments )
Link Flag
Tyson Right on This One
I am jumping in the ring to backup Tyson on this one. You
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
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
Apple Computers Are So Expensive Because...
Apple computers are so expensive because, when you buy one, you not only get a computer, you get membership in a religious cult. -LOL

I prefer the cost-effectiveness of a Wintel-Desktop machines.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
or..
They are better.
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.
Posted by Jesus#2 (127 comments )
Link Flag
but...ummm
cost effective?

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.
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Link Flag
Cost Effective? Please...
The FUD is thick...

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.
Posted by ewelch (767 comments )
Link Flag
Curious
have you priced out 17" laptops from wintel vendors, trying to pack
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.
Posted by (18 comments )
Link Flag
Price of Wintel
so here's what I found out:

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)
Posted by iKenny (98 comments )
Link Flag
lol
Using both wintel and macs for work, I would argue that cost effectiveness is tied directly into productivity, and overall I am more productive with a mac--especially now. The difference for comparable laptop machines is really only about $500.00--if that (more for desktops). If you measure productivity--which you should if you are using your machines in business--then I would argue that your initial savings are more than offset in a few weeks time by greater productivity and security. I agree that the Mac crowd is somewhat cultish, but that also works for you when you do have a techinical question. I suppose the bottom line will always be to buy what makes you and your company happy and productive.
Posted by johnfitz (3 comments )
Link Flag
You pay for Mac OS
The reason I am willing to pay more for an Apple laptop than for a
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.
Posted by (7 comments )
Link Flag
not really expensive
When you compare one of the macs to a comperably equipped Dell
or Gateway then you will see that the Macs arent really all that
expensive.
Posted by ericblr0716 (83 comments )
Link Flag
You Get More Work Done on Them and Make More Cash
You Get More Work Done on Them and Make More Cash

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.
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
Apple Computers Are So Expensive Because...
Apple computers are so expensive because, when you buy one, you not only get a computer, you get membership in a religious cult. -LOL

I prefer the cost-effectiveness of a Wintel-Desktop machines.
Posted by john55440 (1020 comments )
Reply Link Flag
or..
They are better.
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.
Posted by Jesus#2 (127 comments )
Link Flag
but...ummm
cost effective?

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.
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Link Flag
Cost Effective? Please...
The FUD is thick...

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.
Posted by ewelch (767 comments )
Link Flag
Curious
have you priced out 17" laptops from wintel vendors, trying to pack
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.
Posted by (18 comments )
Link Flag
Price of Wintel
so here's what I found out:

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)
Posted by iKenny (98 comments )
Link Flag
lol
Using both wintel and macs for work, I would argue that cost effectiveness is tied directly into productivity, and overall I am more productive with a mac--especially now. The difference for comparable laptop machines is really only about $500.00--if that (more for desktops). If you measure productivity--which you should if you are using your machines in business--then I would argue that your initial savings are more than offset in a few weeks time by greater productivity and security. I agree that the Mac crowd is somewhat cultish, but that also works for you when you do have a techinical question. I suppose the bottom line will always be to buy what makes you and your company happy and productive.
Posted by johnfitz (3 comments )
Link Flag
You pay for Mac OS
The reason I am willing to pay more for an Apple laptop than for a
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.
Posted by (7 comments )
Link Flag
not really expensive
When you compare one of the macs to a comperably equipped Dell
or Gateway then you will see that the Macs arent really all that
expensive.
Posted by ericblr0716 (83 comments )
Link Flag
You Get More Work Done on Them and Make More Cash
You Get More Work Done on Them and Make More Cash

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.
Posted by dansterpower (2511 comments )
Link Flag
Price Doesn't Matter!
Why do people keep insisting on comparing Apple to Dell, HP,
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.
Posted by baldisthenewhair (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Toytoa MAKES Lexus!
They are practically the SAME vehicle!

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!
Posted by gary85739 (613 comments )
Link Flag
Design maybe but not detail
I think the problem with what your saying is your paying for the "slick industrial design" but not a better product. The attention to detail doesn't pertain to the hardware. In a real high end pc attention to detail includes important things like the powersupply. You pay all that money for a Mac and they throw in cheap components that Mac users don't pay attention to because they trust the brand. Now Alienware and Voodoo pay attention to detail that is more worthy of a premium price because everything from the powersupply to cooling system consists of premium components. Macs are more comparable to those import racers that look nice but can't keep up with a real muscle car.
Posted by Akiba (220 comments )
Link Flag
Price Doesn't Matter!
Why do people keep insisting on comparing Apple to Dell, HP,
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.
Posted by baldisthenewhair (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Toytoa MAKES Lexus!
They are practically the SAME vehicle!

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!
Posted by gary85739 (613 comments )
Link Flag
Design maybe but not detail
I think the problem with what your saying is your paying for the "slick industrial design" but not a better product. The attention to detail doesn't pertain to the hardware. In a real high end pc attention to detail includes important things like the powersupply. You pay all that money for a Mac and they throw in cheap components that Mac users don't pay attention to because they trust the brand. Now Alienware and Voodoo pay attention to detail that is more worthy of a premium price because everything from the powersupply to cooling system consists of premium components. Macs are more comparable to those import racers that look nice but can't keep up with a real muscle car.
Posted by Akiba (220 comments )
Link Flag
the new PC laptops are 19"!!!
Think I'll wait about 5-6 months til Apple unveils their NEW 19" laptop!!
Posted by gary85739 (613 comments )
Reply Link Flag
the new PC laptops are 19"!!!
Think I'll wait about 5-6 months til Apple unveils their NEW 19" laptop!!
Posted by gary85739 (613 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Message has been deleted.
Posted by kamwmail-cnet1 (292 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not a Mac guy, but...
I'm not really a mac guy or a MS guy, but that was probably the most ignorant post I've seen. Did you read any other responses? Did you read the article?

Helllooooooooooo...Is there anybody in there?
Posted by tonycb (25 comments )
Link Flag
Find us a real competitor
We choose Dell because we know they make cheap PC's. Us Mac users had no idea their high end was over priced. So I guess it's more fair to use one Manufacturer when we want to compare to Apple's low end, but switch to another Manufacturer when it comes to the high end so the PC can fair better?
Posted by nmcphers (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Find us a real competitor
We choose Dell because we know they make cheap PC's. Us Mac users had no idea their high end was over priced. So I guess it's more fair to use one Manufacturer when we want to compare to Apple's low end, but switch to another Manufacturer when it comes to the high end so the PC can fair better?
Posted by nmcphers (261 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Two Things
Isn't it sad that the same idiots sit at their comuters all day and flame each other? Do something with your ****** lives.
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?
Posted by Webacco CEO (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Two Things
Isn't it sad that the same idiots sit at their comuters all day and flame each other? Do something with your ****** lives.
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?
Posted by Webacco CEO (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
17" is overkill
but it's good for the designers. I'm waiting for the 12"!
Posted by microsoft slayer (174 comments )
Reply Link Flag
12"
They say that the PB 12" as a form factor have been put out to
pasture. The only replacement will be a 13.3" Wide Screen
Macbook/iBook replacement.
Posted by escaport (19 comments )
Link Flag
17" is overkill
but it's good for the designers. I'm waiting for the 12"!
Posted by microsoft slayer (174 comments )
Reply Link Flag
12"
They say that the PB 12" as a form factor have been put out to
pasture. The only replacement will be a 13.3" Wide Screen
Macbook/iBook replacement.
Posted by escaport (19 comments )
Link Flag
oh my god, everytime!
Can somebody just talk about the article!! For god's sake,
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'.
Posted by thebignoticeboard.com (23 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wrong.
People should be given the chance of escaping mediocrety and
blissful ignorance. Don't be so selfish.

Even peecee users should be given a chance.

:)
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Link Flag
oh my god, everytime!
Can somebody just talk about the article!! For god's sake,
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'.
Posted by thebignoticeboard.com (23 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wrong.
People should be given the chance of escaping mediocrety and
blissful ignorance. Don't be so selfish.

Even peecee users should be given a chance.

:)
Posted by TyTyson (154 comments )
Link Flag
Compare to SONY
I don't really want to get into this argument, but when you compare PC laptops to the Mac, I think the best comparison should be to the Sony VAIOs. I think they are closer in style and multimedia functionality to the Mac than other PC manufacturers. For instance, some Sony notebooks come with a built-in camera. I am not declaring a winner, as I don't care to do a detailed comparison.
Posted by darrius3365 (98 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Compare to SONY
I don't really want to get into this argument, but when you compare PC laptops to the Mac, I think the best comparison should be to the Sony VAIOs. I think they are closer in style and multimedia functionality to the Mac than other PC manufacturers. For instance, some Sony notebooks come with a built-in camera. I am not declaring a winner, as I don't care to do a detailed comparison.
Posted by darrius3365 (98 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bah.
Boot Camp only appeals to people that were already using two systems in the first place, or people that were already considering Macs.

In both cases the choice was already made, they perfer OSX.
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Reply Link Flag
woops wrong thread
Oh Noes!!11

It was getting to long anyways I guess.
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Link Flag
But you're forgetting
that Boot Camp is the most important IT release in 10 years.
Posted by Charleston Charge (362 comments )
Link Flag
Bah.
Boot Camp only appeals to people that were already using two systems in the first place, or people that were already considering Macs.

In both cases the choice was already made, they perfer OSX.
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Reply Link Flag
woops wrong thread
Oh Noes!!11

It was getting to long anyways I guess.
Posted by Bob Brinkman (556 comments )
Link Flag
But you're forgetting
that Boot Camp is the most important IT release in 10 years.
Posted by Charleston Charge (362 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.