Booked
Courtesy of Apple
Apple updated the MacBook Pro today. The new systems include the Intel Core 2 Duo processor, as well as larger hard drive capacity*, and the ability to install up to 3GB of RAM. There are still two systems in the line-up, the 15-inch model can be configured with 2.16GHz or 2.33Ghz processor, while the 17-inch model contains the faster chip as standard. Apple claims the new models are up to 39% faster than the previous MacBook Pro systems. In addition to all this, the 15-inch model has gained a FireWire 800 port.
15-inch: 2.16GHz
- 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1440 x 900 pixels
- 1GB memory
- 120GB hard drive
- 6x double-layer SuperDrive
- ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB SDRAM
CDN$2,199.00
15-inch: 2.33GHz
- 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1440 x 900 pixels
- 2GB memory
- 120GB hard drive
- 6x double-layer SuperDrive
- ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 256MB SDRAM
CDN$2,799.00
17-inch: 2.33GHz
- 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1680 x 1050 pixels
- 2GB memory
- 160GB hard drive
- 8x double-layer SuperDrive
- ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 256MB SDRAM
CDN$3,099.00
UPDATE 25 October 2006: Looking at the configurations again I spotted a “Magsafe Airline Power Adapter”, which I hadn’t seen before. It is available to purchase with the new MacBook Pro systems and as a separate item for CDN$65.
UPDATE 2, 25 October 2006: In the forum, Matt mentions a new commercial he’s spotted on TV and I’ve been spending some time playing with the fancy AJAX stylings of the new MacBook Pro site on the Apple web site, including scrolling images on the Design section.
UPDATE 3, 25 October 2006: Macworld (US) have posted an article that considers the 3GB RAM limit in the new systems. Apparently it’s down to the processor, which has “limited memory addressing capabilities”. [Via Daring Fireball]
*Joe Maller offers some perspective on the new hard drive configurations. He welcomes the increased capacity and argues that new drive technology means the decreased speed should not affect performance in the way you may expect.
1 Comments
I went through the hard drive article, or well I read his comment and checked out his link. The best I could find for the comparison is a miniXpress Review.
To me that’s less than convincing an argument. Based upon what Joe says, I can go along with his argument, but as far as I’m concerned he doesn’t give any legit reference for the basis of his opinion. It might be there on the site he shows, but he hasn’t actually given us a direct link.
Also, his comment about them being more energy efficient is rebutted in essence on the article I listed when it says, “Therefore, it could be argued that the lower latency and faster seek time means the 7200rpm drive spends less time working — thereby conserving power usage.” Not to say that’s a definitive win for the 7200, just that the idea of the 4200 definitely being more energy efficient isn’t so cut and dry.
Now, the decreased performance of drives that get too close to full capacity is the one legit thing I noticed there. I’d be a little more interested to see some FCP based benchmarks in that kind of a scenario. So I won’t say no to the 4200 just yet, but I’m not entirely convinced on it so far. Right now I’d still prefer a 7200 to run my applications off of and use external options for footage, but that’s just me.
cheers.