[Londoner]

JakeT said:

I like being able to swap out a hard drive as easily as it was on the Pizmo. Pop one out and pop another in. There are a lot of reasons for it. Like, have one disk for the kids and one for the parents. Or have one for Mac OS and another for Windows.

The Pizmo was thin enough for me. I'm not obsessed about how thin it is.

Ah, yes: the Pismo! A wonder when it arrived nine years ago, as it was the first laptop with Firewire and much faster then the predecessor Lombard. 14" screen, 400 MHz PowerPC 750 (G3) processor, 64 MB RAM (expandable to 512), a super fast ATI Rage Mobility 128 graphics card with 8 MB of SDRAM, and a 6 GB hard disk (later increased to 10 GB). All for only $2,500. And if you wanted an additional hard disk, the price came closer to $3,000.

For the same money you can today either buy a white 13" MacBook for the kids and a unibody 13" MacBook for yourself, or a Mac mini for the kids (including keyboard and a low priced screen) and a 15" MBP for yourself. The kids would then get their own PC to mess up, which is a much better solution.
However, if it was me, I'd spend all the money on a 15" MBP for myself and let the kids have my old Pismo. If they moan about that, I'd offer them my old typewriter as an alternative.

If you want to keep your Windows stuff separate from the Mac OS, just partition the hard disk.

[moose_n_squirrel]

montgomery_burns said:

Removing these screws is also required in order to access the hard drive and memory. If changing the hard drive and memory yourself does not void the warranty, why should it be any different for the battery?

Apples and oranges, in a sense.

A hard drive can be purchased anywhere, and there is no safety issue in shipment or installation.
RAM can be purchased anywhere, and there is no safety issue in shipment or installation.

Lithium batteries do have serious safety issues. To fit more cells in the battery, Apple removed all of the protective plastic hard shell and safety mechanisms that make it easy for any consumer to pop batteries in and out without the thing blowing up. or just shorting spectacularly. Apple probably thinks they could not sell a battery as a user-replaceable part without putting back all of the failsafe design features and shielding that are in your typical user-replaceable battery, and if they did, such an action would remove all the value of this battery design. Therefore, the battery as designed for performance does not qualify as user replaceable. However, I'll bet that you'll be able to get your hands on them somehow, just like how you can get iPod batteries. You'll just never get them from Apple.

[neutrino23]

Since the units on the floor were pre-production perhaps the matte screen was not made quite the same as a production version? We'll know soon.

I'm not thrilled with the layout of the connectors and superdrive but it is tolerable. I'd give up a USB port to have another channel (not just a port) of FW800. FW3200 would be cool but I don't think anyone has parts for that yet.

I'm jazzed about the screen showing off more colors. That will help me evaluate photographs. Now that I'm expanding into short HD videos I like the screen resolution as well. I didn't see the matte version. I'll look for it tomorrow.

The only thing holding me back from getting this one is that my current 17" MBP (first Intel version) is still performing admirably and there is the expectation that Intel will produce a Nehalem series CPU for notebooks later this year.

Regarding the HD, Apple never seems to push the envelope on this spec. Still, 320GB and 7200RPM is not bad.
If I was buying now I'd live with this for a year or so and then swap it out for a 1TB.

[AAARated]

So when will the first update of this line be out . . . maybe September?

I think I can wait with my 17" 2.33 for the first revision and see if they iron out the likely battery bugs and come out with some new "must have" technology.

[heisetax]

Personaly I stopped using my 3.5" floppy drive in my Mac a couple of years before Apple deleted it because of the very poor reliability of floppy disks.

Many people still needed them for school use.

But probably the biggest problem of removing the the floppy drive from the iMac was that even though the iMac was being sold as an all in one, but this left the computer with no externally removable drive.

Apple has been getting rid of items before they shuld more often these days. The removal of the internal modem meant that new laptops had to have a modem hanging out of it to allow it to send faxes. But I guess they needed this internal USB port to change the iSight camera from a useful FW400 connection to the much poorer USB2 connection.

An internal battery is being touted as an improvement while it actually falls in line with Apple's refusal to have any of its batteries be an user replaceabble item.they're probably using the 17" model as their test market or to get Mac laptop users ready for the same in the Intel MaciBook& the Intel MacBook Pro.

At first the non-removable battery will cut 17" Intel MacBook Pro sales. then unless some companies fill this void with Mac Clone portables, the 17" User will end up caving into the pressure caused by having an aging laptop.

[spiderbat]

Wow! I'm leaping for joy! I guessed Apple would impose its new fancy for super-glossy-mirror-like-displays to its entire line of MBP. Now, the logical step would be a matte option for the 15".

[jvora]

With the anti glare option, does the screen become like the original matte screen - Pre unibody macs ??

Kindly clarify.


Thanks,

Jai

[farmboy2]

I'm in ophthalmic research. There is no health risk to your eyes from the brightness of a monitor, period. Your eye strain is most likely the result of constant focus at the monitor, not the brightness level. If it bothers you, turn it down, but you get eye strain in dim light as well.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

farmboy2 wrote:

> There is no health risk to your eyes from the brightness of a monitor, period.



Thank you for that response, farmboy2. As a scientist in an unrelated field, I was skeptical of the claim that medical harm to the eyes could come from the MacBook display. It seemed a huge liability risk if true, and an exposure that a company with $10 billion in cash wouldn't want. But like so much fear-mongering today, the notion that a bright monitor is harmful to the eyes is as unsubstantiated as the spoutings of the "organic foods" movement and the homeopathic medicine movement.

[aryayush]

palane said:

>I also like that Apple is acknowledging users who need the matte option, though an anti-glare coating isn't the same thing.

jvora said:

With the anti glare option, does the screen become like the original matte screen - Pre unibody macs ??

Yes, it does. It?s not an ?anti-glare coating?, it?s just a matte screen.

[jvora]

Hello Aayush :

Thanks - Your confirmation has made my day - Just GERAT !!

Now, only if apple would provide this option to the 15" MBP - At least there is some hope !


Jai

[People_Eater]

MorrisTheCat said:

I just feel better knowing that Apple hasn't completely lost their minds with regards to user upgradable parts in their systems.

But why would you even think that in the first place? Weren't you the one who stated in another thread that the HD and RAM was not user-serviceable, without any evidence? I just don't get why people make such claims without verifying first.

[People_Eater]

TeaEarleGreyHot said:

But like so much fear-mongering today, the notion that a bright monitor is harmful to the eyes is as unsubstantiated as the spoutings of the "organic foods" movement and the homeopathic medicine movement.

Wait, homeopathic medicine is complete BS, but what's wrong with organic foods? I'd rather not have pesticides, artificial preservatives, hormones and other toxins in my food. And my organically home-grown veggies are far superior in flavor and texture to those that the supermarket sells.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

{quote:title=People_Eater wrote:}{quote}
> ...what's wrong with organic foods? I'd rather not have pesticides, artificial preservatives, hormones and other toxins in my food. And my organically home-grown veggies are far superior in flavor and texture to those that the supermarket sells.
[/quote]
I won't dispute that homegrown produce beats store-bought for flavor, texture, color, and joy of eating, largely because of unfortunate realites in mechanized harvest and long distance shipping. I love gardening, local foods, and appreciate that what I and my neighbors grow is not the product of exploitative labor practices.

But don't think for a moment that your organic garden is protecting you from the naturally-occuring phytotoxins, mycotoxins, bacteria, phytochemicals, soil and mineral residue, and the decay and spoilage byproducts resulting from increased insect feeding and pathogen attack on untreated produce. And those toxins and natural chemicals are FAR more hazardous than pesticide and preservative residue (in the U.S. and likely most other countries). Take a course in food toxicology: learn about aflatoxin and tetrodotoxin and selenium and staphylococcus aureus and lipid A, not to mention botulism, and discover that the human ED-50 for raw cabbage is a mere 500g because of toxins that the cabbage itself makes. These are normal environmental and integral components of any agriculture. I am a pathologist; this is my expertise. Take a moment and realize that "organic farming" permits the use of manure teas, compost teas, and other brews that are TOTALLY uncharacterized, untested, and often unsafe, and can be applied as late as hours before harvest, and think about salmonella, listeria, noroviruses and giardia, lead, mercury, and chromium. You literally don't know what they've put in your "organic" food that the grocery store sells at a premium. Such "organic" food is not one bit more nutritious than the standard product, and is potentially far more hazardous to your health.

But there is great profit motive in creating a niche market and putting a "brand" on commodity produce, and unfortunately this encourages the misguided, the misinformed, and the miscreant alike toward shrill fear-mongering. Simply put, "organic food" is a scientific and consumer fraud that most of my colleagues are too timid and polite to proclaim.

It is true that our species followed organic food practices for millennia--despite these risks. But we live longer now, and in numbers far surpassing what Earth could otherwise sustain, in part owing to improved nutrition, reduced foodborne illness, and a more reliable food supply. Evolution has given us the ability to survive fairly well DESPITE all these toxins and hazards. And I heartily encourage you to continue cultivating your garden and enjoying its bounty.

(Thank you to the editors for allowing me to digress so long.)