Macbook Pro Released powered with Intel Core Duo processor

So, it's released, and basic model costs 2,000$. You can read here what it has inside. I think the interesting fact about this new apple product is that it's powered with Intel's processor. I wonder, how hard would it be to replace apple's software with custom version of linux or windows? Anyway, I would say it's a smart move, using intel. Apple claims it's now 4x times faster than regular apple's G processors...
What do you think? Is it worth?

2000$ OMG!!! Now, I really don't know much about the cost of regular computers in the US, but isn't 2000$ a bit on the higher side? What is the range of a regular desktop (say Intel) assembled from parts? 1000-1500$?

But abhiram, MacBooks aren't your regular desktop computers; they're laptops. And if that wasn't enough, Apple's product normally tend to be on the higher side. Add to that, a weird assortment of what I believe to be fantastic hardware equipments, especially in the MA091LL model.The design is very slick and elegant. The standard set of software you can choose from with the MacBook Pro is vintage Apple.Although I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using a Mac for so long, since I find it doesn't provide me with enough low-level accessibility - which is a plus, I think, since they're made to be super-user-friendly - I still have to admit a Mac remains a classic in the computer arena.The integration of an Intel Duo processor is a bold move. I'm not an anti-Intel fanatic, but I don't enjoy the sound of that. Plus, 4 times faster than a G-processor? I find that a bit too hard to digest. I thought the G5's weren't that slow, I actually enjoyed a seamlessness to its work.Anyway, I suppose we might know more about all this in the next Expo. Too bad I'm too pressed in time these days to follow news from the source. So thanks for the post, finaldesign. :-)

But abhiram, MacBooks aren't your regular desktop computers; they're laptops.  And if that wasn't enough, Apple's product normally tend to be on the higher side.  Add to that, a weird assortment of what I believe to be fantastic hardware equipments, especially in the MA091LL model.

 

The design is very slick and elegant.  The standard set of software you can choose from with the MacBook Pro is vintage Apple.

 

Although I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using a Mac for so long, since I find it doesn't provide me with enough low-level accessibility - which is a plus, I think, since they're made to be super-user-friendly - I still have to admit a Mac remains a classic in the computer arena.

 

The integration of an Intel Duo processor is a bold move.  I'm not an anti-Intel fanatic, but I don't enjoy the sound of that.  Plus, 4 times faster than a G-processor?  I find that a bit too hard to digest.  I thought the G5's weren't that slow, I actually enjoyed a seamlessness to its work.

 

Anyway, I suppose we might know more about all this in the next Expo.  Too bad I'm too pressed in time these days to follow news from the source.  So thanks for the post, finaldesign.  :-)

1064335562[/snapback]

 

 

With enough low-level access? All you need is the O'reilly "MacOS X for Unix Geeks" book that shows how gain access to the core functions. Having used BSD systems for four years before switching to OSX....I can do anything that I could with FreeBSD, OpenBSD or Linux for that matter. The exception being Aqua, but I've never needed too.

 

Plus I still don't understand this whole BS about "oh they are using Intel". The level of intergration will just help to improve the Apple "It should just work" philosophy. If they can customize hardware/software configs to a set spec, you should see a Mactel outperform any other OS with x86 chip-set combo.

 

The G5 is arguably a more powerful chip BUT there are two major draw backs. One is business, the other is technical. The G5 processor, technically, is a flop for a laptop. Laptops are now outselling desktops and I think that trend is going to continue. The G-5's take too much power and produce too much heat for use in a laptop. Also IBM/Freecell have had many production and design problems in the last few years missing several promises. Bottom line Freecell couldn't deliver what they said they could when they said they would. Finally, IBM basically said they were shifting away from being a hardware company and becoming a consulting business. So what Apple wanted and what IBM wanted to do were shifting away from a business perpective.

 

Now, if you want to produce a computer and don't want to risk production problems or headaches who do you turn too? AMD? No, AMD is facing the same production and fabercation woes that Freecell suffered. Furthermore, AMD is basically at capacity. They are selling everything they can produce. One of the big factors why they don't have more than a 15% market share is that they cannot produce more chips, so even if 25% of the market wanted AMD chips, AMD current CANNOT devliver. By default that leaves you with INTEL.

 

Furthermore, INTEL is shifting away from the "make the fastest chip possible" and why AMD is current the favourite with gamers. Intel, on the otherhand, is going towards producing more effienct chips. Those that gain more performance using less power and producing less heat, which are the factors that dominate laptop performance. Personally, I would hedge bets on Intel over AMD. I honestly believe the days of a PC gaming machine are numbered and that people aren't going to need or really use 64-bit technology in their laptops. 64-bit chips typically perform worse at "business" applications like word processing and spreadsheet calculations.

 

Also, Apple is heavy in the graphics market and most rendering technologies in the last couple years have been tweaked for x86 performance. Just something to note....

 

Now with all that being said, I would not buy a new Macbook Pro. Not until this time in 2007. It is a first generation Apple product. You don't buy first generation Apple products....ever!

I like the new designs, but not the specs. I always opted for IBM based chips because they run better . I love the RISC than the CISC. There ARE couple of things missing on the MacBook Pro. Such features left out are: BIOS, modem, and floppy.xboxrulz

Ummm....excuse me....but the computer you are referring to does indeed have a BIOS. Not a PC BIOS of course. Just because it uses an Intel chip, does NOT mean it's a PC. Remember, the BIOS is the BASIC INPUT/OUTPUT SYSTEM. What would a modern computer be without that basic function? Now, because it uses Open Firmware, it's not exactly a BIOS you are used to. There's a different key combination to get into it, and it works more like a command line than a menu. There's a lot more I could say....and I'm not trying to get on you about this, but I think maybe you could do a bit more research before posting bogus information.

maybe I'm wrong on the BIOS, but why would they release a laptop without a modem? There's still hotels around the world still using dial-up.xboxrulz

Maybe because it's being phased out, going the way of the 1.44M floppy disk? Broadband internet has gotten ridiculously cheap. You can get broadband cable connections for less than the price of dial-up AOL these days. Apple does tend to phase out aging technologies before anyone else.

*sighs* I don't like Mac anyway - well, not for their computer systems, I mean. I still don't quite understand how they can charge over twice the amount that PC users can pay for a comparable PC-based notebook computer. I keep expecting Apple to go right out of business, but they hang in there. Weird. Very weird.

I rather think Microsoft is going out of business, but due to their vendor locking, they'll never. What a pity! *sighs*I have cheered for Apple since when I was 6 :Dxboxrulz

I have cheered for Apple since when I was 6

You mean, you still run SuSE on an Apple machine? Or do you have another system just for linux?

*sighs* I don't like Mac anyway - well, not for their computer systems, I mean. I still don't quite understand how they can charge over twice the amount that PC users can pay for a comparable PC-based notebook computer.

 

I keep expecting Apple to go right out of business, but they hang in there. Weird. Very weird.

1064335768[/snapback]

First off Apple is a niche player. They have a loyal fan base and then an odd mixtures of those who want to use a computer that "just works" without being a nerd and powerusers/professionals.

 

A lot of companies opted for Macs to replace aging DEC/SUN/Irix Unix workstations. I can remember a 166Mhz Sun SPARC workstation with 2GB of ram costing $16,000 each and that was like six years ago. So a 10Ghz Quad-core Power Mac with 8GB of Ram for $7,500 is a bargin to those folks.

 

But really why do people spend so much for PowerMac machines? Apple Pro Tools. It's the software, not the hardware. Granted these tools are directly geared towards video and graphics industry. I mean our copies of the Compositing Application Shake were $3000 each. If you want to run Shake on Linux, it costs $5000. So you can actually buy a base-level PowerMac AND Shake for what it would cost for Shake on Linux.

 

As far as pricing goes, that really is a myth for the most part that Apple is more expensive. At the local mall there is both an Apple Store and Sony Store. Compare the laptops in each...they are within a few dollars of each other for the same basic features. Now I will admit that the fact the Viao towers come with a built in video capture system is a nice feature (why Apple does NOT do this on the iMac and ESPECIALLY the PowerMac series is beyond me...), but still it comes down, at least for us, to: "Can you run Final Cut Pro on anything other than Mac?" No.

 

I know that everytime I went to price out a laptop or home computer, I've found Apple to be within dollars or cheaper. I mean my Mac Mini was $850 plus $50 for the DVI to TV adaptor, mini-jack to RCA, and PS/2 mouse & keyboard to USB adaptors. I use my 42" LCD TV as the monitor (although I need to splurge and get the wireless bluetooth keyboard and mouse). I get iTunes, iMovieHD, Garage Band, and all the other iLife software that allows be to do anything I need. It was $100 for a cheap firewire video capture device so I could record our old VHS movies to DVD. And it was easy to use with no hassles. Everything just worked and iMovie is extremely powerful for home movie editing. If you have a firewire or USB Mini-DV camcorder, you don't even need the video capture card, just plug it in. My two Sony Digital Camera's I've owned...just plugged them in and iPhoto pops up and down loads the images from the memory card: no need to load special software or drivers.

 

The other big factor, that is hard to calculate, is I need not worry about spy ware, mal ware, or viruses as much. They still exist for Mac, but are not as many.

 

Basically four years ago I got tired of my AMD tower crashing due to heat issues in Windows, the lack of many appliactions and divers for Linux (my printer [both HP820CSE and HP712C], scanner, nor sound card EVER had working drivers) and I was leaving to go out of the country for about a year. So I bought an iBook and never looked back. All by OSS Unix goodies, all the Apple only goodies, I could boot into WIndows 2000 via Virtual PC, and all my favorite commecial application like Photoshop and GoLive all on one laptop. Yeah, I'll pay a few bucks more for that convenence.

abhiram, I never actually owned a Mac before (as I don't have the money), the latest machine is a Pentium 4 running SUSE Linux (maybe PCBSD later) and Windows XP (for games only).Yet, I've cheered for Mac and always wanted one.xboxrulz