# New MacBook Pro's Released! Core i5/i7 and 10 Hr battery!



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Check it out - it's been a while coming, but it's finally here... new MBPs!

Apple (Canada) - MacBook Pro - Meet the new MacBook Pro family.


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

Decent pricing Cdn vs. US exchange...bodes well for the iPad release.....


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

Yup, I'm very much liking the new models. Better battery life, faster processor, a new high-res display on the 15-inch and finally automatic graphics switching.

For some reason I thought the mobile i7 was quad-core though. It think it's really misleading that the desktop i7 is quad-core but the laptop isn't.

I'll have to research what the difference between the mobile i5 and i7 is. On the desktops, the difference is mainly hyperthreading, but it seems that the mobile chips are different beasts.

Luc


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Meh..... I've a 2.8 GHz C2D 15" MBP from October 2008 and it looks like the i7 only provides 10-20% performance increases with typical apps (like Aperture 3.01). I'm sure under heavy use with intensive processing its better. The auto-switching of the graphics processor looks cool (for battery life) - that's a bigger deal than the new processors.

Pretty clear, though, where Apple has been focusing its efforts.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm very impressed both with the specs of these new MBPs and with the pricing. Screw the iPad, I'm getting a 15" i7!!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Seems to me there were a number ehMacers who said the i7 wouldn't be coming to the MacBook because it was too big an energy hog and would run too hot. Looks like these nay sayers are now eating humble pie.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The i7 chip in the new MBPs is "only" dual core (as opposed the the quad core in the iMac). I'd guess that’s for power consumption reasons - but the 8-9 hour battery life is pretty amazing. Do PC laptops have the quad core i7?


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Some PC laptops have i7 quads. But they're monsters. I bet Apple couldn't fit (for now at least) the quad i7 into the 1" form factor.

The Auto-Graphics switching is cool - 'cause the intel "HD Graphics" are bound to be crap. Also, no MacBook Air update today 'cause they can't mix NVidia with i5/i7 ULV processors (thanks Intel and their lawsuit trying to protect a monopoly) and putting out a new MBA with Intel "HD Graphics" would be a step backwards. :S

Will also be interesting to see what the prices of the refurbs come down to. The 17" MBP i5 is now only $2349. (with more for the i7 chip).

What's annoying is that now you have to pay $150 for a non-glossy screen on a 15" MBP. You can only get the Matte Screen on the higher Res 15" MBP.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

How the heck did Apple manage 8 to 10 hour battery life without using the ULV versions?? All the PC manufacturers who have made 8+ hour laptops have had to go with CULV processors. Score one for Apple.

It seems the 13" still just has a normal Core2Duo.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Very nice update. Still happy with my 2.6ghz C2D from late 2009..

But if I had to replace it, I'd still be on the fence between a new 15" i5 or a 27" i7 iMac!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Seems to me there were a number ehMacers who said the i7 wouldn't be coming to the MacBook because it was too big an energy hog and would run too hot. Looks like these nay sayers are now eating humble pie.


perhaps the naysayers were referring to the quad core in the iMac. In that case, it appears they were right.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

fyrefly said:


> Some PC laptops have i7 quads. But they're monsters. I bet Apple couldn't fit (for now at least) the quad i7 into the 1" form factor.


I've got a Lenovo W700 laptop as my main computer at work (with docking station). It has a quad-core processor, but it's bigger than two 17" MBP stacked, and about the same weight as both of them. Very powerful, incredibly cumbersome.


----------



## daniels (Jul 27, 2009)

just like they said my 2009 mbp 13" would have a 8 hour battery but it only lasts for 4 hours with just web browsing


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

dona83 said:


> How the heck did Apple manage 8 to 10 hour battery life without using the ULV versions?? All the PC manufacturers who have made 8+ hour laptops have had to go with CULV processors. Score one for Apple.
> 
> It seems the 13" still just has a normal Core2Duo.


Yeah. Same Old Core2Duo that was in the MBPs before, but new Nvidia chip that NVidia made just for Apple. That probably has something to do with the power savings 

AppleInsider | Nvidia 320M GPU made especially for Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pro



daniels said:


> just like they said my 2009 mbp 13" would have a 8 hour battery but it only lasts for 4 hours with just web browsing


Serously? My 15" MBP 2009 goes for easily 7 hours while just surfing. What else are you doing? Are you using it on a hard surface, or a pillow or somethings that causes it to heat up and spin the fans, decreasing battery life?

My Mom has a 13" MBP 2009 and it goes for at least 6+ hours on a single charge... And Apple advertised those 09 models to get 7 hours on a single charge, not 8.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

But does it allow you to "hold the internet in your hands"? That is the real question!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> perhaps the naysayers were referring to the quad core in the iMac. In that case, it appears they were right.


This goes back to even before there was an i7 in the iMac, and some of them were doubting it would even be adopted into the iMac. But to be fair they may have been referring specifically to a quad core i7 and not thinking of the possibility of a dual core i7.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

Frankly, the 13" is a bit disappointing. I expected at least a i3 processor, but yeah, the whole Intel/Nvidia debacle kind of screwed things up there.

I suppose they made the best of a difficult situation by beefing up the graphics and upping the processor speed. Still think the 250HD is a joke, but I'll take the extra 3 hour battery life. 

Still, I wonder if a refurb 2.26 MBP at $1049 (when available) is a better deal.


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

Edu pricing has the 13-inch MBP at $1149; I'd take that over the refurb it replaced....double the ram, longer battery and bigger HD, etc...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> This goes back to even before there was an i7 in the iMac, and some of them were doubting it would even be adopted into the iMac. But to be fair they may have been referring specifically to a quad core i7 and not thinking of the possibility of a dual core i7.


it's hard to imagine anyone would doubt the next gen intel chips on a smaller die (32nm!!) in a dual core config as being too hot for an iMac!

They had to be referring to the quad core most definitely.


----------



## daniels (Jul 27, 2009)

right now im at school the laptop is sitting on the desk and theres 83% of battery left i am only browsing the web. and theres 3 hours and 58mins left. the fan is turned off


----------



## Jarooda (Jul 18, 2006)

Most quad-core i7's run at 1.6ghz and then turbo boost to 2.66. In my opinion, this is a better solution. Could you imagine apple trying to market that ad faster than previous gen? Lol.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

MacBook Pro 15-inch Core i7 Benchmarked: It's So Fast - Macbook pro core i7 benchmark - Gizmodo


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Time for an i5 Mac mini.


----------



## mac91 (Feb 18, 2010)

Are the 13inches even worth getting? they dont have the new i5 processors...


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

satchmo said:


> Frankly, the 13" is a bit disappointing. I expected at least a i3 processor, but yeah, the whole Intel/Nvidia debacle kind of screwed things up there.
> 
> I suppose they made the best of a difficult situation by beefing up the graphics and upping the processor speed. Still think the 250HD is a joke, but I'll take the extra 3 hour battery life.
> 
> Still, I wonder if a refurb 2.26 MBP at $1049 (when available) is a better deal.


I would wait a few days if you're shopping for a refurb... I think the prices are gonna come down. They lowered the prices of 17" models, etc... so refurbs of previous-gens are now more $$ than the new models intro'd today. 

IMHO, Let the prices settle in a week or so and we'll see the refurbs priced $100-200 less than they are now.



mikeinmontreal said:


> Edu pricing has the 13-inch MBP at $1149; I'd take that over the refurb it replaced....double the ram, longer battery and bigger HD, etc...


Yeah, for $100 more, it's worth it. But if the refurbs drop (as I expect they will), then the difference may be more - making the decision harder 

For example... the Clearance prices for the 13" seem to be $1149 and $1449 vs. $1299 and $1599 retail... so yeah, I'd hope Apple would take another $100-150 off of the refurbs from the clearance prices...



daniels said:


> right now im at school the laptop is sitting on the desk and theres 83% of battery left i am only browsing the web. and theres 3 hours and 58mins left. the fan is turned off


Is the brightness at full? I dunno why you'd be getting such little battery. 

Also, have you ever actually used your laptop for the whole "3:58" that the menu-bar says? Did it die? I've had my menubar say 2:42 or something before, and I've worked for another 4 hours. The battery time in the menu bar, especially on the unibodies, is notoriously conservative.



broad said:


> MacBook Pro 15-inch Core i7 Benchmarked: It's So Fast - Macbook pro core i7 benchmark - Gizmodo


Yeah... that's impressive. It's gotta be due to two things:

1. Turbo Boost - if you're benchmarking - you're cranking the processor, which means it overclocks itself... the 2.66Ghz Model overclocks to 3.33Ghz. So that's really benchmarking a 3.33Ghz MBP against a 2.8Ghz MBP.

2. HyperThreading - each core can run two threads, so it's basically a phantom 4-core processor in there... so again, benchmarking a 4-thread processor against a 2-thread is gonna give you some substantial gains. 

This is all just to try and acquiesce myself into thinking my 09 2.8Ghz MBP is fine and I don't need to drop $2500 on a new machine


----------



## JetSter735180 (Aug 8, 2007)

Wrong thread! Sorry


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

You would have better success posting this in the classifieds rather than here, where it has little to do with the topic.

Cheers,

Luc




JetSter735180 said:


> Price check! Going back to school in september and I want the new 15" HiDef version...im gonna sell my 17" (too big to carry around from class to class)
> 
> How much ?
> 
> ...


----------



## daniels (Jul 27, 2009)

Lars said:


> Time for an i5 Mac mini.


Just what i am waiting for as well . 

I feel ripped off by apple I payed $1559.00 8 months ago for my 2.26, 2GB ram and upgraded to a 250gb hard drive. And now for $269.00 less they sell the 13" with double the ram of mine :-( with a faster processor.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

The 13" stuck with the C2D so that they could use the new graphics chip that Nvidia made exclusively for Apple. Intel shut Nvidia graphics out of the i-series processors, and the Intel-HD on board graphics is too big of a step backwards. So old processor with better graphics was a better tradeoff compared to new processor with worse graphics.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

daniels said:


> Just what i am waiting for as well .
> 
> I feel ripped off by apple I payed $1559.00 8 months ago for my 2.26, 2GB ram and upgraded to a 250gb hard drive. And now for $269.00 less they sell the 13" with double the ram of mine :-( with a faster processor.


8 months is a LONG time in the computer world.


----------



## daniels (Jul 27, 2009)

i'm going to upgrade the 2gb ram to 4gb so it can keep up. Anyone know where to get cheap ram from for mbp?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

daniels said:


> i'm going to upgrade the 2gb ram to 4gb so it can keep up. Anyone know where to get cheap ram from for mbp?


oempcworld.com


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Canada RAM sells RAM memory for Apple Macintoshes in Canada - DIMMs, SODIMMs, for MacBook, MacPro, iMac, G4, G5, PowerBook, Mini

likely the most recommended by far.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

fyrefly said:


> I would wait a few days if you're shopping for a refurb... I think the prices are gonna come down. They lowered the prices of 17" models, etc... so refurbs of previous-gens are now more $$ than the new models intro'd today.
> 
> IMHO, Let the prices settle in a week or so and we'll see the refurbs priced $100-200 less than they are now.


Sure enough, the MBP 2.26 refurb is available for $1019.

So for $230 more, you get a slightly faster processor, 2gb more RAM, 90 gigs more HD, 3 hour more battery life, and a purportedly better graphics card.

What do you think? Is it worth it? 
I have an iMac with only 1.5 gb of RAM and it's served me fine. The only thing I'm thinking is if that new graphics card might be better in driving a large 23" display.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

FYI: Contrary to nearly every post in this thread, the new MBP's have 9-hour rated batteries, not 10, and therefore is a 2 hour increase from previous models, not 3.  **

Carry on...

** _The Apple web sites states "8-9" hours, so 9 isn't even guaranteed, never mind 10 hours._


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

New MacBook Pros support audio over Mini DisplayPort


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Lars said:


> FYI: Contrary to nearly every post in this thread, the new MBP's have 9-hour rated batteries, not 10, and therefore is a 2 hour increase from previous models, not 3.  **
> 
> Carry on...
> 
> ** _The Apple web sites states "8-9" hours, so 9 isn't even guaranteed, never mind 10 hours._


8-9hour for the 15"-17" models. For the 13" Model it's 10 hours. Probably due to the new NVidia Integrated Chip:

Apple (Canada) - MacBook Pro - Technical specifications of the 13-inch.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> New MacBook Pros support audio over Mini DisplayPort


finally... a reason to have a mini-display port!


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> New MacBook Pros support audio over Mini DisplayPort


There has GOT to be a firmware or software update that can enable this on all the older Macs, right? Otherwise, why did Apple pretty much intentionally cripple the early MiniDP Macs? Makes little sense... :S


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

The lack of audio is more likely hardware, not software.

MiniDP was originally Apple's own spec. It then got rolled into the official spec, but not before Apple released nearly all its current lineup. The new MBP may actually be the first since miniDP became a formal standard.


----------



## 9780 (Sep 14, 2006)

The Internet: where real-world limitations (time, money, technology) become conspiracies to rip-off consumers.

Anyways, I like the update! The 13" Pro is mighty attractive now, whereas before I was leaning towards the UMB...

Patrix.


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

Before I consider purchasing a MBP, I'd like to know how easy it is to replace the hard drive. I love how easy it is the the MB. Can you get to the drive from underneath, or do you have to actually separate the case?


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

csonni said:


> Before I consider purchasing a MBP, I'd like to know how easy it is to replace the hard drive. I love how easy it is the the MB. Can you get to the drive from underneath, or do you have to actually separate the case?


On the Unibody models, you just take out the botton screws and pop the bottom plate off. The Hard Drive is right there.

Here's a PDF from Apple to show you how to do it. It's pretty easy, I've done it to my 15" and my mom's 13":

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/MBPRO_13inch_Mid2009_Hard_Drive_DIY.pdf

UPDATE: And here's a HTML page about how to do it with the 17" Model - they're all basically the same though.


----------



## jbatson (Apr 15, 2010)

Does anyone know if there will be a software/firmware update for older MBP's so we get this new "seamless GPU switching"? From what i've read its all software based anyways, so it shouldn't be that hard right? Although I could be mistaken with that...


----------



## doulogos (Jul 15, 2009)

I write as one for whom portability trumps screen size. 

I say that knowing that such a thought will likely remain incomprehensible to those (younger) fan boys who have yet to mature beyond that age old freudian "bigger-is-better" mindset. Notwithstanding, I was more than a little disappointed to find the new 13 inch MBPs lacked a CPU upgrade.

Yeah, yeah. I know, GPU trumps CPU for Mr. Jobs, but I think that was a false dichotomy. You could've done both Steve, it wasn't an either/or situation. Sure, it would have cost more, but every last customer you have shares this one thing: they are all willing to pay a premium for a decent product. I suppose I am just personally annoyed that I waited these last few months, only to be disappointed.

Sure, the Core 2 Duo CPUs are old technology, and come June certain CPUs in the C2D family will have already reached their end of life cycle and be discontinued; but there are still some C2D lines that will be viable for many months to come, though they will certainly exist in the ever darkening shadow of the new 2010 line of CPUs that are already eclipsing their former glory. I just wonder if I shouldn't hold out for another couple of months more. Perhaps the 13 inch MBPs will have their own mini-refresh once Apple recoups their investment in the older tech?

The thought of having to lug about a 15 inch notebook rather depresses me.

(edit: deleted a superfluous word: "sells" in the second last sentence)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I recently went full portable with a new 17 2.8 and sold the mac pro. I love the mbp truthfully, but I'd rather go back to a 15 despite the nice resolution this thing has. I tend to plug into a big monitor at home or studio 80% of the time anyway, the difference in lugging this ting around compared to a 15 is very noticeable. I'm considering a downsize in my near future...


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

doulogos said:


> Yeah, yeah. I know, GPU trumps CPU for Mr. Jobs, but I think that was a false dichotomy. You could've done both Steve, it wasn't an either/or situation. Sure, it would have cost more, but every last customer you have shares this one thing: they are all willing to pay a premium for a decent product. I suppose I am just personally annoyed that I waited these last few months, only to be disappointed.


Actually I believe the upgraded NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics graphics in the 13" are not compatible with the i5, so no, he couldn't have done both. Note the built-in graphics on the 15" and 17" are not this new 320M chipset, but the old Intel built-in graphics. And I don't believe the discrete graphics cards in the 15" will fit in the 13" case, at least not without heat issues. So it actually was an either/or situation.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

hayesk said:


> Actually I believe the upgraded NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics graphics in the 13" are not compatible with the i5, so no, he couldn't have done both. Note the built-in graphics on the 15" and 17" are not this new 320M chipset, but the old Intel built-in graphics. And I don't believe the discrete graphics cards in the 15" will fit in the 13" case, at least not without heat issues. So it actually was an either/or situation.


its actually a legal issue preventing nvidia and any i series processor from being used together. also, there is no "discrete graphics card" (along the lines of a video card in a mac pro, that can be removed and replaced etc) in any of the 15" or 17" laptops. the GPU is built onto the logic board.


----------



## doulogos (Jul 15, 2009)

hayesk said:


> Actually I believe the upgraded NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics graphics in the 13" are not compatible with the i5, so no, he couldn't have done both. Note the built-in graphics on the 15" and 17" are not this new 320M chipset, but the old Intel built-in graphics. And I don't believe the discrete graphics cards in the 15" will fit in the 13" case, at least not without heat issues. So it actually was an either/or situation.


That is probably so. Notwithstanding, because there are already laptops on the market that are as small or even smaller than the current 13" MBPs that have both i5/i7s -and- discrete GPUs, it stands to reason that Apple _could have_ found a solution had they so desired. It isn't like the the engineers at Apple couldn't make it work, for I think we would agree that they could.

I understand why they did it, and I am not saying that it doesn't make sense. What I was saying was that I was disappointed with refresh because two weeks ago, when no one knew what the refresh was going to include, and we were all dreaming up our best/worse case scenarios, I had simply assumed that when Apple finally put out the 2010 CPUs, that they would do so across the board. At that time at least, it didn't seem crazy or pie-in-the-sky-ish to imagine an i3 or i5 13" MBP - such that when the refresh arrived, I was dissapointed, and the idea that Jobs had to choose between GPU or CPU struck me as a false dichotomy because he could also have chosen to rework the 13 inch boards etc. for the 2010 CPUs - it isn't like the fell out of the sky in January - I mean, everyone knew they were coming. 

So I didn't mean to suggest that Apple could have slapped the GPU change they eventually went with onto an i5 - what I meant was that Apple could have planned for a new CPU in the 13" MBPs, and come up with a different GPU upgrade solution. 

Don't get me wrong, my disappointment isn't that Apple could have _easily_ put a newer CPU in the 13 inch line - it is that they _didn't_ put one in. I am not going to lose sleep over it, it is just one of those selfish, momentary grumps that finds its best expression on an internet forum :lmao:


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Doulogos, I'm totally with you and while I have a 15" MBP 09 that's fine, I also have a late-2008 MBA that is stuck in limbo still (even worse than the 13" MBP).

The MBA needs an integrated graphics card due to size/power/heat limitations I'm sure of it. 

But there's no other Core2Duo chips that will fit in the MBA than the ones are are already in there. So the MBA is caught in limbo till NVidia/Intel lawsuit is settled (hopefully in Nvidia's favour). They can't put an i3/i5 ULV processor in the MBA or else they'd have to go back to crappy Intel "HD Graphics" which would be a huge step backwards (we all remember the 1st Gen MBA and the throttling/stuttering that the x3100 caused back then).

So the MBA is caught in a non-update limbo more than the 13" MBP. 

And this time Apple is reallly (IMHO) stuck w/o a viable upgrade path. Thanks again to Intel's desire to have a monopoly on integrated graphics.


----------



## doulogos (Jul 15, 2009)

@Fyrefly - I hear you, and feel your pain in a sort of disconnected internet vicarious sense.

In fact, and I kid you not, one of the only consolations I could find was that_ at least I wasn't waiting for a MBA_. Which I don't suppose cheers you up at all, but there is that thing about misery appreciating comfort.


----------



## kkritsilas (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't know if Apple could have put the i3/i5 and 320M together. Remember that Intel and Nvidia are currently at odds, and Nvidia doesn't have any technology agreement with Intel regarding the iX series of CPUs. In addition, the i3/i5s have integrated graphics chips (I refuse to call Intel's pathetic graphics chips GPUs). By sticking with the C2Ds, Apple gains the freedom of being able to pick their own motherboard chip set, and to make sure that even the lowest end MacBook Pros have good graphics performance. I think that Apple's intent was to have graphics at least as good as the previous generation's, and better if possible. I think that part of the delay with the new MacBook Pro generation has as much to do with Apple trying to get Intel to remove the integrated graphics chip from the iX family as anything that Apple has done internally. There were a lot of reports as to how unhappy Apple was with the performance of the integrated Intel graphics chip when it was first announced.

In terms of heat generation, the iX series actually generates less heat than the C2Ds as stand alone CPUs; I don't know if this is true of the mobile iX CPUs with the integrated graphics chip.

The other point is that there may not be a significant speed improvement with the i3/integrated graphics chip vs. the C2D/320M combination. The i3 clock speed is generally not as fast as the C2Ds, so any efficiency improvements due to the i3s improved architecture is probably swamped out by the C2Ds faster clock speed, along with the improved graphics of the 320M. In any case, Apple has been able to get a 10 hour battery life out of the 13" MBP, so there have been significant improvements in power efficiency.

Kostas


----------



## jagga (Jul 23, 2005)

fyrefly said:


> 8-9hour for the 15"-17" models. For the 13" Model it's 10 hours. Probably due to the new NVidia Integrated Chip:
> 
> Apple (Canada) - MacBook Pro - Technical specifications of the 13-inch.


I don't believe real-world claim of 10hrs even on the 13". Still 1 hour more than my current 13" Al_uMB would be sweet; along with the better graphics - which I'm SURE will mac OS X 10.7 shine as the dependance on OpenGL/OpenCL will increase. 

I couldn't care less about audio through the DisplayPort ... I'm old school and STILL would love to have dual audio ports; leaving me still with 2 USB ports!! 

I'm hoping in October we'll see USB 3.0 & FW3200 on ALL MBP and MacPro's, and the iMac refresh. 

PS: currently in 10.6.3 the perfomance of most of your work doesn't get a boost as it seems the new 13" uses the same C2D P8600 that even my 2008 MB aluminum is using. The price is very nice but I'm unsure the 2.4Ghz base is worth it; 2.66Ghz yes it's worth it.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

fyrefly said:


> And this time Apple is reallly (IMHO) stuck w/o a viable upgrade path. Thanks again to Intel's desire to have a monopoly on integrated graphics.


Perhaps this is the reason for the rumoured talks between Apple and AMD.


----------



## mac91 (Feb 18, 2010)

satchmo said:


> Perhaps this is the reason for the rumoured talks between Apple and AMD.


Ew. AMD.. Intel and nVidia better work their stuff out!


----------



## Brrr (Dec 11, 2007)

*in-Depth Review*

Anandtech has posted an in-depth review here:

Apple's 15-inch Core i5 MacBook Pro: The One to Get? - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News 

Some shorter ones on ArsTechnica:
MacBook Pros updated with Corei5/i7 processors, 10hr battery (Updated)
Inside Apple's automatic graphics switching
New MacBook Pros support audio over Mini DisplayPort (Updated)

Mine is shipping from China as we speak. Should get it tomorrow or Wed. First time I've bought a Mac at full retail in over 20 years!


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Yeah, lots of reasons why the i5/i7's are winners. 

Ars has a decent article going over what's up with the 13"ers and why the i3/i5 really *wasn't* an upgrade Apple could stomach without a lot of bad compromises (Battery life, space, heat, cost, etc...)

Why the 13" MacBook Pro didn't get a Core i5 upgrade

Friggin Intel and their need to force their crummy "HD Graphics" on everyone. :S

Favourite Quote: "It turns out that there are several reasons that factored into Apple's decision, including cost, graphics performance, battery life—and the laws of physics." :lmao:


----------



## Lexter (Apr 25, 2010)

*Doing the PC to MAC jump and need to know...*

Hello:

I am gearing up to finally do the PC to MAC switch.

It may be a hit on the pocket book, but I feel it is worth it as it is a better product.

As to the hit on the pocket book, what I need to know is that the information on the apple site @ 
Apple (Canada) - Mac - Which MacBook are you? - Comparison Chart 
is indeed the latest greatest.

After following the forums for awhile I noted that people kept referring to the "new versions of the Macbook and MBR".

Is this the chart / update that everyone was referring to?

I would hate to start my transition and find out I was buying old stock or not understanding the configuration of the different laptops.

Seems you have to choose wisely first crack as there is no adding later, so to speak.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Lexter


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

The MacBooks were *just* updated last week. If you're buying from Apple's Online site or an Apple Store - you will be getting the latest and greatest. No Old stock (unless you shop the refurbished section).


----------



## DDKD726 (Feb 21, 2005)

Just to clerify, you can add ram and you can upgrade the hard drive without compromising the Applecare Warranty.



Lexter said:


> Hello:
> 
> I am gearing up to finally do the PC to MAC switch.
> 
> ...


----------



## spiralgirl (Mar 8, 2007)

I ordered the i7 15" Macbook Pro high res anti glare a week ago and am expecting it this Friday. Hope I like it since they had no high res anti glare in the Apple reseller store I went too and the manager hadn't even seen one.

I've been reading every review I can find.


----------



## jagga (Jul 23, 2005)

Oh you WILL be happy, I'm sure of it. 

Has anyone with aluminum 13" unibody MB upgraded to the new MBP?


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

spiralgirl said:


> I ordered the i7 15" Macbook Pro high res anti glare a week ago and am expecting it this Friday. Hope I like it since they had no high res anti glare in the Apple reseller store I went too and the manager hadn't even seen one.
> 
> I've been reading every review I can find.



You will love it. I bought that exact model from the Ottawa Apple Store (in-stock!) last Tuesday, and I just love it. Battery life is not really 8-9 hours for me though, more like 6-7 hours, which is still respectable. Granted, that depends on the task. If I'm generating thousands of previews in Aperture, it goes down to under 2 hours since the CPU and GPU and maxed out.

Great computer though, if you're concerned with colour accuracy, and matte panel is much better than the glossy.

Luc


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

I just don't like that Apple makes you get the High Rez version to get the Matte Screen. I'd love an i7 MBP, but I want a matte screen and I think the higher rez makes things a *bit* too small (took a look at a Matte Screen MBP at the Eaton Centre Apple Store the other day).


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

I'm assuming that their market surveys have shown that it's mostly photographers and graphic artists that want the matte screen, and those people also tend to want high-res as well.


----------



## Lexter (Apr 25, 2010)

*Just ready to transition*

Thanks you to the people that gave me advice on the pricing and old vs new stock at Apple Canada.

Lexter


----------

