[karlfranz]

Dan, I asked this in MacWorld Labs' review of the new 15in MBP, but I'll ask here too:

Could someone at MacWorld Labs please confirm if Apple has fixed the serious issues with their Mini-Displayport to Dual Link DVI adapter on this latest batch of MacBook Pros? I am seriously considering "upgrading" my Penryn MBP to the newer 2.66GHz model mostly for the better keyboard and unibody case, but am very concerned about the possibility of having display issues with my 30" Apple Cinema Display. The comments in the Apple Store and Apple Discussion Forums about this adapter don't indicate if this has been solved for newer models. Thanx.

[Adrian_Malloch]

The whole thing about anti-glare, ExpressCard/34 slot and Mini-Displayport /DVI issues is that the MacBook Pro is marketed by Apple as a Professional machine, but clearly, Apple is dumbing down the line to satisfy consumer demand and stripping back features that real professionals need. I'm a professional photographer and having used a 17"Powerbook and then a 15"MacBook Pro, there is no contest for practical location work. The 17" is just too big for lugging around, mounting on a stand in the field for tethered shooting, carry-on on airlines and using on your lap in cattle-class. Great to see improved gamut, LED backlighting and the more rigid unibody; they are real improvements. But surely a 15"MBP with one video card, real DVI ports, dual FW 800 ports, eSata or ExpressCard/34 slot and a matte screen is possible if Apple was honest about it being a professional portable computer. The 17" is for studio based photographers tethering to cameras, art directors who take their work home at night and film crew creatives and techies who have a crew to lug their gear around.
There used to be two model lines of portable Macs. Merging the two into a compromised single lineup means that the pro in MacBook Pro is beginning to look like marketing BS.

[JS2009]

I wish the 15" MacBook Pro had a matte screen. The review of polls at http://macmatte.wordpress.com indicates that 40% of Apple users prefer matte screens. In a more recent poll at ZDNet, that figure was 66%. But the anti-matte crowd dismiss the polls by explaining that online polls are answered disproportionately by fanboys etc. -- so, in reply, let's say conservatively that 30% of Apple users prefer matte. The online comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com indicate many of the pro-matte refuse to buy any Mac with a gloss screen, which means that, say, 5-10% of Apple users will refuse to buy gloss screens. What corporation would gladly accept 5-10% in lost sales, if they could simply offer a $50 antiglare option for all their models?

[belmeloro]

I will likely get me one of these, but since I will not be anywhere near an Apple Store anytime soon and will order a BTO machine, what I really need from a review is the answer to these two questions:

1. Matte vs. Glossy. I have matte on my current 17 inch, and think I would prefer matte on my new machine, but not if the gorgeous deep blacks I've heard about are missing on a matte screen. So can somebody please check them out side by side and report back on that issue?

2. Hard drive speeds. Should I go with the 7200 rpm drive or the 256GB SSD? What is the make and model of the SSD Apple offers in the 17-inch? I've read the theoretical max throughput on the 17-inch is twice that of the 15-inch, but are these SSDs taking advantage of that? How easy/feasible would it be to buy and install one of those really fast SSDs, and is it worth the money? (If so, what kind would you suggest?) Does the Apple-supplied SSD suffer from those second-long pauses when doing multiple small writes, as older SSDs have been prone to?

Those two questions are foremost on my mind as I go about making my purchasing decision. Apple's website doesn't help on either count, so if you can help, MacWorld, please do:-)

[nathanimal]

I agree. I don't understand how this is a con - how else can you make a 17" laptop smaller than 17"? Indeed, this probably is the smallest 17" laptop available. I think people know what they're getting into when they buy this. I suggest retracting "huge" from your list of cons, unless you would care to elaborate on how it could and/or should be smaller.

[Dan Frakes]

nathanimal said:

I agree. I don't understand how this is a con - how else can you make a 17" laptop smaller than 17"? Indeed, this probably is the smallest 17" laptop available. I think people know what they're getting into when they buy this. I suggest retracting "huge" from your list of cons, unless you would care to elaborate on how it could and/or should be smaller.

I didn't say it should be smaller; I just noted the large size as a con. I also noted it as a pro.

Even if the 17-inch MacBook Pro is smaller than some models from other vendors, it's still a huge laptop, and I don't know anyone who likes carrying around a bigger, heavier machine. So that large size is a unquestionably a drawback unless you never move the thing off your desk.

Of course, the large size has benefits, as well. As I noted in the review, the 17-inch MacBook Pro has an expansive screen and incredible battery life; that's why I also noted the size in the pros.

In my view, the large size is both the biggest pro and the biggest con, and worth nothing in both categories. If the large size isn't a turn-off for you, then you're the ideal customer for this model :)

EDIT: I should also make clear that the large size didn't really factor into the rating and the phrasing "huge" was intended to be partially tongue-in-cheek! Perhaps I should have phrased it as, "Large size, though providing benefits, also makes the laptop more difficult to carry than smaller laptops." That likely would have ruffled fewer feathers ;)

[hilltoons]

The large screen being both a "pro" and a "con" didn't ruffle my feathers at all. Actually, if you think about it, the strongest feature of almost anything has pluses and minuses.

For example, Car & Driver magazine has used similar pro/con, (highs/lows) in their ratings and reviews of cars, for years. When they review a sports car with a huge engine, they usually list acceleration as a "high"... and bad gas mileage as a "low". Similarly, the recent review of the new Toyota Prius mentioned the great gas mileage as a "high"...and lack of performance and acceleration as "lows".

-- No one ever questions them covering both the good and bad aspects of the car's 'main feature'.

[Martian]

I will bet an HONEST matte vs glossy poll ? ie: a poll where marketing people and others who peddle spin and dishonesty for a living have nothing to do with the methodology or results ? would strongly favor matte screens.

A VALID opinion survey on the glossy vs matte debate would focus on:
? Those who have a STRONG opinion ? an opinion strong enough to actually influence their actions
? Those who base their opinions on real comparative experience and won't be surprised after blundering into a wrong purchase
? Those whose comparative experience is specifically with laptops. Laptops are viewed tilted up, and are moved around to multiple environments.

Matte screens would be a clear winner here.

[jragosta]

Martian said:

I will bet an HONEST matte vs glossy poll ? ie: a poll where marketing people and others who peddle spin and dishonesty for a living have nothing to do with the methodology or results ? would strongly favor matte screens.

A VALID opinion survey on the glossy vs matte debate would focus on:
? Those who have a STRONG opinion ? an opinion strong enough to actually influence their actions
? Those who base their opinions on real comparative experience and won't be surprised after blundering into a wrong purchase
? Those whose comparative experience is specifically with laptops. Laptops are viewed tilted up, and are moved around to multiple environments.

Matte screens would be a clear winner here.

First you advocate an honest poll - and then make an unsupported flat statement that Matte screens would be the winner. Contradict yourself much?

I personally have used both and currently have two glossy screens (MacBook white which is a poor screen, but for other reasons and MBP 17" glossy). In neither case is the glossy screen a problem for me. I use them at home, outdoors, in airports, hotels, etc. In the few cases where glare is an issue, I only need to reposition the screen very slightly to get rid of it. Most of the time, there's no problem at all with the glare. OTOH, the glossy screens give much better clarity, brightness, color and contrast than the matte screens.

If you were right and the majority of people preferred matte screens, that would likely have shown up in sales figures for models which had both available. The fact that Apple dropped the matte screens suggests that they weren't great sellers.

[jragosta]

JS2009 said:

I wish the 15" MacBook Pro had a matte screen. The review of polls at http://macmatte.wordpress.com indicates that 40% of Apple users prefer matte screens. In a more recent poll at ZDNet, that figure was 66%. But the anti-matte crowd dismiss the polls by explaining that online polls are answered disproportionately by fanboys etc. -- so, in reply, let's say conservatively that 30% of Apple users prefer matte. The online comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com indicate many of the pro-matte refuse to buy any Mac with a gloss screen, which means that, say, 5-10% of Apple users will refuse to buy gloss screens. What corporation would gladly accept 5-10% in lost sales, if they could simply offer a $50 antiglare option for all their models?

Your last sentences contradict the first ones. If it were really true that 40-70% of people preferred the matte screens AND Apple was charging an extra $50 for the matte screens, what rational person would drop the matte screens? No only would there be some lost sales, but they'd lose $50 per computer on about half of their sales.

I suggest that a more rational explanation is that matte screens were not big sellers, so not worth the bother. That fits the facts better.

Oh, and you really ought to be more skeptical of on-line self-selecting polls. First, the people who fill them out tend to be people with a gripe. Second, it's trivial for someone to create a bot that sends in hundreds or thousands of votes in a very short time. If you want a poll to have any validity at all, you need to provide a random sample as a minimum and then be very careful about the way the poll is conducted.

[repmek]

jragosta said:

Quote

I suggest that a more rational explanation is that matte screens were not big sellers, so not worth the bother. That fits the facts better.

I suggest to the contrary: Matte was selling just fine, after all it was the default option. Glossy was BTO, so by default Apple was selling more matte. Glossy was a pure Apple design and marketing decision to court the average movie watching consumer, leaving the pro designers in the dust.

[jragosta]

repmek said:

Quote

I suggest to the contrary: Matte was selling just fine, after all it was the default option. Glossy was BTO, so by default Apple was selling more matte. Glossy was a pure Apple design and marketing decision to court the average movie watching consumer, leaving the pro designers in the dust.

You can suggest whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.

The fact is that Apple is currently charging $50 extra for matte. If there were so much demand for matte, they would be selling more computers and getting more money on many of the ones they currently sell.

So do we believe that Apple is stupid and walked away from something that was selling like hotcakes or that there really wasn't that much demand for matte?

Occam's razor says the latter.

[repmek]

jragosta said:

Quote

You can suggest whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.

Whatever your facts may be. The anti-glare option is not strongly advertised, compared to former matte/glossy MBPs they had none on the floor until the recent remodeling of our Apple Store, how do you know how many they could sell if they wanted to? They could have sold one more 15" matte to me for all that I care.

Apple doesn't want to sell them, because they iphone-ified the design of their entire midrange Mac lineup and that is the fashion du jour. Whether they could make more money or not doesn't matter to Apple as long as it does fit into their current business or design strategy. See other changes/omissions in features on any product for the better or the worse. With the $50 extra Apple is throwing a bone to the professionals and make them upgrade to a 17". Call it stupid. Call it smart. That is all there is to it.

The 17" Macbook Pro is now the only Apple laptop that deserves to be called "Pro".

[jragosta]

[quote name='repmek']
>

jragosta said:

> You can suggest whatever you want. That doesn't make it true.

Whatever your facts may be. The anti-glare option is not strongly advertised, compared to former matte/glossy MBPs they had none on the floor until the recent remodeling of our Apple Store, how do you know how many they could sell if they wanted to? They could have sold one more 15" matte to me for all that I care.

Apple doesn't want to sell them, because they iphone-ified the design of their entire midrange Mac lineup and that is the fashion du jour. Whether they could make more money or not doesn't matter to Apple as long as it does fit into their current business or design strategy. See other changes/omissions in features on any product for the better or the worse. With the $50 extra Apple is throwing a bone to the professionals and make them upgrade to a 17". Call it stupid. Call it smart. That is all there is to it.

The 17" Macbook Pro is now the only Apple laptop that deserves to be called "Pro".

The lack of evidence to back up your claim is noted.