Help
Post your comments for Review: MacBook Pros (Early 2011) here
Review: MacBook Pros (Early 2011)
#2
perdygood 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 153
- Joined: 19-August 09
Posted 03 March 2011 - 02:42 PM
You only tested the performance with one game?? Where was it I read that Call Of Duty is the only game, out of several tested, that the intel graphics performed a little worse, with performance equal or better in all other games tested?
#3
spiderbat
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 23-March 01
Posted 03 March 2011 - 02:51 PM
I know it's an old story, but I'm still a little disappointed by the choices of Apple concerning displays. After all, these MacBooks are called "Pro" and there are enough professionals that must use their laptops many hours a day to type text or perform other operations that require great visual attention, often in situations (e.g., in public libraries) where the user has little or no control over the light and its reflections. In these cases, a matte display is highly desiderable, but Apple seems to push the super-glossy solution. In particular, the only matte display available for the 15" model is the "high resolution" one, that can pose readability problems to elder people.
#4
spinoza2
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 540
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 03 March 2011 - 03:18 PM
"I know it's an old story.."
Well, the pseudo issue of "glossy" displays" really is an old story, sort of like beating a dead horse. I'm typing this on my very "glossy" MacBook Air on a local commuter train, and for the life of me I cannot detect a reflection on this thing. I switched from matte (MacBook Pro) to glossy a couple of years ago, and I will never go back to the comparatively low contrast, washed out matte displays of yesteryear. My MacBook Air display is razor-sharp, bright, and high contrast, it's a joy to use.
There's a reason Apple moved away from those old displays, thank goodness.
Well, the pseudo issue of "glossy" displays" really is an old story, sort of like beating a dead horse. I'm typing this on my very "glossy" MacBook Air on a local commuter train, and for the life of me I cannot detect a reflection on this thing. I switched from matte (MacBook Pro) to glossy a couple of years ago, and I will never go back to the comparatively low contrast, washed out matte displays of yesteryear. My MacBook Air display is razor-sharp, bright, and high contrast, it's a joy to use.
There's a reason Apple moved away from those old displays, thank goodness.
#5
KGBguy
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 12-February 07
Posted 03 March 2011 - 03:35 PM
Glossy screens is simply a waste!!!
I do not like the fact that I have to pay more money each time I am trying to buy a new mac. Why in the worl would you enev go to this "USELESS" glossy screen anyways?! That's for Spinoza2
Now, MacWorld as always disapointing review.
Whar about RAM performance vs older version? what about 2.2 vs 2.3 corei7 in them? vs money and if it is worth it. also you never tested against older 2.8 i7 and so on and so worth. Most of the reviews I see are so narrow "minded". It should be noted that http://www.anandtech.com/ does so much of a better job on reviews and testing.
I do not like the fact that I have to pay more money each time I am trying to buy a new mac. Why in the worl would you enev go to this "USELESS" glossy screen anyways?! That's for Spinoza2
Now, MacWorld as always disapointing review.
Whar about RAM performance vs older version? what about 2.2 vs 2.3 corei7 in them? vs money and if it is worth it. also you never tested against older 2.8 i7 and so on and so worth. Most of the reviews I see are so narrow "minded". It should be noted that http://www.anandtech.com/ does so much of a better job on reviews and testing.
#6
jibberjabber
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 15-December 10
Posted 03 March 2011 - 03:50 PM
"The $2499 17-inch model has the same specs as the $2199 15-inch MacBook Pro."
Except of course that the 17" has a 17" screen at 1920x1200, whereas the 15" is 1440x900. That's more than 75% MORE pixels.
Except of course that the 17" has a 17" screen at 1920x1200, whereas the 15" is 1440x900. That's more than 75% MORE pixels.
#7
wardoggie
- Veteran
-
- Group: Macworld Insiders
- Posts: 1,662
- Joined: 02-September 04
Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:02 PM
spinoza2, on 03 March 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:
"I know it's an old story.."
Well, the pseudo issue of "glossy" displays" really is an old story, sort of like beating a dead horse. I'm typing this on my very "glossy" MacBook Air on a local commuter train, and for the life of me I cannot detect a reflection on this thing. I switched from matte (MacBook Pro) to glossy a couple of years ago, and I will never go back to the comparatively low contrast, washed out matte displays of yesteryear. My MacBook Air display is razor-sharp, bright, and high contrast, it's a joy to use.
There's a reason Apple moved away from those old displays, thank goodness.
Well, the pseudo issue of "glossy" displays" really is an old story, sort of like beating a dead horse. I'm typing this on my very "glossy" MacBook Air on a local commuter train, and for the life of me I cannot detect a reflection on this thing. I switched from matte (MacBook Pro) to glossy a couple of years ago, and I will never go back to the comparatively low contrast, washed out matte displays of yesteryear. My MacBook Air display is razor-sharp, bright, and high contrast, it's a joy to use.
There's a reason Apple moved away from those old displays, thank goodness.
Psuedo-issue? "This problem doesn't affect me, therefore it doesn't exist."
Glad you like your MBA, but I'm typing this on a glossy iMac that forces me to close the window blinds in my office every afternoon when the sun hits my side of the building, illuminating the wall behind me. When I finally upgrade my personal 2006 MBP with the matte screen, which I chose after a side-by-side comparison with a glossy MBP in the Apple Store, I'll gladly spring for the high-res/matte screen upgrade.As for the review, thanks for the great work, James et al. The performance of a mid-range desktop in a 15" MBP? I hope that same performance ratio is there when it's time for me to upgrade!
#8
wardoggie
- Veteran
-
- Group: Macworld Insiders
- Posts: 1,662
- Joined: 02-September 04
Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:15 PM
KGBguy, on 03 March 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:
Now, MacWorld as always disapointing review.
Whar about RAM performance vs older version? what about 2.2 vs 2.3 corei7 in them? vs money and if it is worth it. also you never tested against older 2.8 i7 and so on and so worth. Most of the reviews I see are so narrow "minded". It should be noted that http://www.anandtech.com/ does so much of a better job on reviews and testing.
Whar about RAM performance vs older version? what about 2.2 vs 2.3 corei7 in them? vs money and if it is worth it. also you never tested against older 2.8 i7 and so on and so worth. Most of the reviews I see are so narrow "minded". It should be noted that http://www.anandtech.com/ does so much of a better job on reviews and testing.
From the article:
Quote
(Macworld reviews and rates standard configurations only, though we may test and publish benchmark results of Macs with custom configurations when available.)
FWIW, Macworld has already updated the Speedmark 6.5 page, so you can compare the current crop of standard configurations to prior standard configurations. They might not be as thorough as anandtech and other such sites, but that's not too shabby, IMO.
#10
spinoza2
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 540
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:23 PM
" "This problem doesn't affect me, therefore it doesn't exist." Glad you like your MBA..."
Apparently it's not affecting several million other "glossy" Mac users, either.
So perhaps you should rephrase your statement:
"This problem doesn't affect several million users, therefore it doesn't exit."
Now that has a better ring to it! How about a "I'm a happy glossy Mac user" t-shirt?
And yes, I do like my MacBook Air, a lot.
Apparently it's not affecting several million other "glossy" Mac users, either.
So perhaps you should rephrase your statement:
"This problem doesn't affect several million users, therefore it doesn't exit."
Now that has a better ring to it! How about a "I'm a happy glossy Mac user" t-shirt?
And yes, I do like my MacBook Air, a lot.
#11
wardoggie
- Veteran
-
- Group: Macworld Insiders
- Posts: 1,662
- Joined: 02-September 04
Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:35 PM
spinoza2, on 03 March 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:
"This problem doesn't affect several million users, therefore it doesn't exit."
LOL, I'm sure the glare from your glossy screen prevented you from catching that mistake.
#13
wlunscher
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 16-January 08
Posted 03 March 2011 - 04:45 PM
Now what I'd like to see is for the Mac mini to offer the range of spec's these MacBooks have. After all, many consider the mini a laptop without screen and keyboard.
At the high end, with a quad-core i7, this would make a serious desktop machine. Equipped with thunderbolt you could drive many monitors and/or a mini-tower expansion chassis. My dream machine.
At the high end, with a quad-core i7, this would make a serious desktop machine. Equipped with thunderbolt you could drive many monitors and/or a mini-tower expansion chassis. My dream machine.
#14
wardoggie
- Veteran
-
- Group: Macworld Insiders
- Posts: 1,662
- Joined: 02-September 04
Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:09 PM
yangzone, on 03 March 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:
Any chance of some context here? For those people with one, two and three year old machines it would help to know, even approximately, what the improvements are.
http://www.macworld....65_results.html
That goes back as far as the 15" MacBook Pro 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo 2GB RAM (Early 2008) model.
