Slashdot Log In
Apple Announces New MacBook, Pro, Air
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:58 PM
from the must-have dept.
from the must-have dept.
Steve Jobs just got through announcing new MacBook lines in Cupertino. The MacBook, the Pro, and the Air all got revved. The old line of plastic-body MacBooks drops in price by $100, to $999. The new MacBooks have a metal body and multi-touch trackpad, just like the new Pros. The Pro features two NVidia graphics chips. Quoting Jobs: "With the 9400M, you get 5 hours of battery life, with the 9600M GT you get four hours of battery life. You choose." In summary: "We're building both [MacBook and Pro] in a whole new way. From a slab of aluminum to a notebook. New graphics. New trackpad, the best we've ever built. And LED-backlit displays that are far brighter, instant on, far more environmentally responsible." They are shipping today and should be in stores tomorrow. Oh, and one more thing: Steve's blood pressure is 110/70.
Related Stories
[+]
Mobile: Hands-On With the New MacBooks 128 comments
Paige Philuer writes "Macworld has a hands-on article examining the new MacBook and MacBook Pro — not a quickie look from Tuesday's event, but a lengthy, in-depth look with laptops they actually have in their offices. Some interesting observations: No FireWire on the MacBook; the TrackPad doesn't feel like you're running your finger across a pane of glass, though that's what it is; and switching between graphics cards in the MacBook Pro requires you to log out."
Reader Bourbon contributes three links at CNET related to the new models, too: a positive written review (giving a score of 8/10 to the new MacBook), a video review, and a behind-the-scenes look at how the new models are machined.
[+]
A Brief History of Features Apple Has Killed 461 comments
Technologizer writes "Some folks are outraged over the lack of FireWire in the new MacBook released this week. But Apple wouldn't be Apple if it didn't move faster than any other computer company to kill technologies that may be past their prime. And history usually validates its decisions. We've posted a decade's worth of examples that prove the point."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how AAPL stock drops after an announcement.
Buy on rumor. sell on fact.
Re:First post? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:First post? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Dual Video Cards? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is anyone's interest peaked by the new dual video cards? Especially with OpenCL [wikipedia.org] possibly being the 'next big thing'. I'd be very interested in Photoshop CS4 benchmarks too.
Second, is this the next big competitive 'edge' (now that everything is dual core). Apple was one of the first companies to put dual processors in consumer products. I remember debating between a Dual 800 MHz or a Single 866 when I went to college and ended up spending the extra on the dual. I swore to myself then that I'd never go back to a single processor. Now everything is dual core, dual processor, quad core, etc.
gestures (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, so first it was 1 finger, then 2, then 3, and now finally 4. What's next, fisting?
(Yes, I know I am a terrible person, why do you ask?)
Re:gestures (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least they finally shut up the people complaining about "only one mouse button."
Now there's ZERO! Hahahhaahahaa!
Parent
Smart (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, Apple is smart.
They stick with NVidia GPUs, but give you two: when the first stops working you can switch to the backup.
They're so on it.
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Informative)
Answering my own query [engadget.com]:
11:01AM Q: Concern about the glossy screens. Are you going to offer another option?
A: Steve: We're going all glass -- we won't offer another version. Phil: You offset the reflection by the brightness, and consumers love it. One of the great things about a notebook is you can turn it however you want!
Uh, yeah. Great. Guess I'm keeping my matte for a while.
W
Parent
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
I'm not trolling, honest question. Why are so many manufacturers going to glossy LCDs? Cheaper to build, what? 'Cause every end user I support hates the things. Except one, and he always likes to be different anyway.
What benefit, real or imagined, do hardware makers think/believe/want us to believe, is to be had from glossy screens?
Parent
media (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people use their laptops as portable media players - watching movies on the couch, looking at pictures, etc. Glossy screens give the impression of better colors for that kind of use, so they're increasingly used in laptops in the consumer market.
I'm kinda disappointed to read about this, frankly. I'd at least like the option to not have one, cause they're fucking terrible.
Parent
Re:media (Score:5, Funny)
Note: your results may vary.
Parent
Re:media (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, especially since steel is softer than glass. D'oh!
Since when?
Glass is about a 5.5 on the Mohs scale.
Steel ranges from 5.5 to 7 depending on the alloy.
Parent
Re:media (Score:5, Funny)
And my reply is about 9.2 on the Meh scale.
Parent
Re:media (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought that glossy screens were an absolutely awful idea when I first heard of them. But after seeing and using them for a while, I now find them to be a far better choice.
Remember, the difference between matte and glossy is now how much glare the screen reflects, just how sharply focused that glare is. With a glossy screen, if you're sitting at the wrong angle, you get a big bright unusable glare. But if you adjust that angle even very slightly, the glare goes away _completely_.
A matte screen, on the other hand, is the hedging approach. There's no single point at which the glare is really awful... and there's no point at which the glare goes away entirely. You're just averaging the glare over all possible angles.
Given how painless it is to nudge a laptop one way or the other by a couple of degrees, I'm now much happier with the option to have no glare whatsoever, rather than just constant not-too-terrible glare. It's a little weird actually seeing true black on a laptop screen in a lit room, but I assure you that it's refreshing.
Parent
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally love my glossy screen and would never again consider a matte option.
For one, glossy screens are easier to clean. With laptops, it's somewhat inevitable that the screen will get fingerprints on it. With a matte screen, you need a specific wipe/spray to clean. My glossy display cleans easily with a damp paper towel. Glossy screens also showcase vibrant colors better than matte screens. This is probably why so many manufacturers are pushing glossy...under the right conditions, stuff just looks better on a glossy screen. But I would bet that Apple is moving to glossy in preparation for laptops where the screen is touch-sensitive (ala iPhone/iPod).
And having used one for the past year, the glare issue is really a red herring. I don't notice it. In fact I find the glossy screens more usable in sunlight conditions since they appear brighter than the matte. I actually find it really hard to believe your statement, "every end user I support hates the things" based on my experience. It's really hard to fathom that anyone who has actually used a glossy display for any serious amount of time wouldn't prefer it to a matte display.
Parent
Re:Glossy only? Agreed! (Score:5, Informative)
I work with several professional photographers as a consultant. I can assure you that glossy displays DO NOT work as well subjectively for most photographers and other artists using LCD displays. Some photographers still insist on using CRTs because of those subjective preferences.
You can bake the numbers all you want, but if the palette and contrast don't feel right for photographers - many of which started using Photoshop to work with Tango-scanned film images - they will not touch it. Consistency, not gimmicks, are key for these folks.
These are not gear queers running out to compare the specs on the newest whoosy-whatsit, but artists who are extremely picky about their equipment. Here's what they tell me they HATE about glossy displays:
-Extreme brightness on glossy displays = extreme contrast. It's harder to believe you're looking at a calibrated 2.2 gamma when your "superbrite" glossy LCD display has such a massive contrast ratio.
-Working in neutrally-painted, darkened rooms is optimal. When you turn these superbright LCDs down to achieve a reasonable brightness for a darkened room, the glare and reflections from the glossy panel are distracting. Turn it back up, and it takes you several seconds to a minute to see where you're going.
-The higher brightness leads to colors looking more saturated, which sells with consumers. Most pros I talk to HATE it. Photographers who rely on a muted palette and who work in color managed workflows can't tell what's going to roll out of their printer with displays like the iMac's glossy LED display - the colors seem too contrasty and saturated, so everything gets dialled down too far.
That's my experience. Pros hate these damned displays.
Parent
Re:Glossy only? Agreed! (Score:5, Informative)
Contrast has nothing what so ever do with gamma. A CRT has a contrast ratio in the 10000-100000:1 range.
Glossy LCDs use coatings which originated with CRTs. Its the same technology evolved. A CRT and a glossy LCD have similar glare properties. If you clients are having glare problems, they need to be using a hood.
Glossy screens are not any brighter than matte. Their contrast comes from having a better black-level, i.e., less diffuse glare from the environment. "Color saturation" is how much "white" is mixed into color. Matte screens have worse saturation because they mix in (diffuse) more environmental "white" light.
This point is the closest to being right. Glossy screens have a more different color-space relative to CYMK ink processes than matte screens. But any good software, such as photoshop, has the ability to highlight gamut errors. The remaining trouble is that the in gmaut color-space is compressed because the display's color-space is larger.
The real problem is that 8b/color channel is not enough for modern wide-gamut displays such those you can make using LED backlights and glossy anti-glare coatings. Photographers near universal failure to understand the technical situation and speak-up means that their needs are wholly under-represented, and many of the new color-professional wide-gamut products are unusable due the colorimetric distances being too far given 8b/color channel.
Parent
Re:Glossy only? Agreed! (Score:5, Informative)
Glossy screens are just not acceptable for the calibration and perception standards
Oh, come on. You seriously maintain that you cannot calibrate the color output of a glossy display? Do you even know what the only physical difference between the two is?
Let me inform you, since you probably do not. There is literally no difference in any of the elements which significantly affect the spectrum of the emitted light. In a LCD display, those would be the backlight, the LCD subpixel intensity filters, and the color filter. All these components are 100% identical between a glossy and non glossy display. The one and only different component is that a matte display has a surface roughening treatment (or coating) on the outermost glass layer to provide some scattering.
Scattering does two things, one desirable and one undesirable. The desirable part is that it greatly reduces the intensity of reflections of other things in a room (especially light sources). It's hard to see a reflected image when the light is reflected in a ton of different directions by the rough surface.
The undesirable part is that it does the same thing to the image being displayed. And that's why people like glossy displays: the colors can be much more saturated (matte displays have a bit of a whiteout effect) and the display is brighter given identical backlights (scattering sends a lot of the light output off in random directions).
Parent
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Graphic Designer wants older matte screens because they supposedly reproduce colors better (the same reason they held onto CRTs well after LCDs debuted).
I'm Mr. Dabbles in Graphic Design Person. You need to remove the "supposedly" in your statement above, especially when it comes to CRTs vs LCDs. High end LCDs are almost as good as decent CRTs, mostly because LCDs significantly change color with viewing angle. When you're worried about graphic design or photography, getting the color right is really important, and even slight color shifts are unacceptable.
I'm also Mr. Professional Visual Neuroscientist Who Does Some Colorimetric Work. No serious colorimetric work is yet being done with LCDs for the very same reason: a green dot needs to be exactly the same green whether it's presented in the middle of the screen or at the edge. With CRTs that's the case. With LCDs, assuming the viewing position is the same, the viewing angle changes slightly between those two screen locations, and the color is altered.
I had cause to use a glossy screen laptop recently. Couldn't wait to get rid of it, as I was distracted by my own reflection, or a reflection of the things behind me, or the lights, or whatever else was at the right (or wrong?) angle. Until LCD screens get some really good antiglare coating, matte is the way to go.
Parent
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple question: do you think Apple is marketing the new Macbooks for Mr. Joe Collegestudent or Mr. Professional Visual Neuroscientist Who Does Some Colorimetric Work?
Apple spends 9/10 of their time marketing. Always hasl. Mr. Professional Visual Neuroscientist Who Does Some Colorimetric Work arguably won't get the laptop marketed for its Word processing and gaming use.
Parent
Re:Glossy only? (Score:5, Funny)
Please clarify: you are arguing in favour of glossy screens, right?
Parent
Re:is there some kind of film you can apply? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cause I prefer using a Mac? I like OS X. I'm a perfectly capable *nix user, so I like having it available to me, in addition to a nice simple GUI.
Parent
Re:is there some kind of film you can apply? (Score:5, Insightful)
Preferring OS X is relevant because if you want to buy a laptop with OS X, you're now stuck with a glossy screen.
You can't buy and connect any screen you want without serious modifications to the laptop. Adding an external display is not the point; it's a portable computer.
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Informative)
The Mini DisplayPort is downsized from the full sized DVI connector. The Mini DisplayPort can drive everything the big DVI can (30-inch displays).
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Informative)
The Mini DisplayPort is downsized from the full sized DVI connector. The Mini DisplayPort can drive everything the big DVI can (30-inch displays).
...if you buy the $30 adapter for it.
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, /.-ers should be overjoyed at a connector that is royalty/license-free.
And yet still costs more than those royalty/license-laden connectors... funny how that works.
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was also JUST ANNOUNCED TODAY. Wait until it shows up on Monoprice.
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet still costs more than those royalty/license-laden connectors... funny how that works.
Because speech != beer?
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Informative)
It gets worse: The adapter capable of running the 30" display is $99, not $30.
The $30 adapter is only capable of running 1920x1200
http://store.apple.com/us/search?find=displayport [apple.com]
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Informative)
Display Port is the new industry standard. All the new HPs laptops are coming with Display Port.
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Informative)
HDMI has patents and licensing involved. That's why almost no PC maker is using it.
Display Port is a free industry standard.
Parent
Re:But all glossy... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Uneven coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Smart people. (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is overpriced.
No, they're not. As long as they're reaching their sales goals, their price is less than or equal to what it could be. For having such a high opinion of yourself and your financial habits, you suck at economics.
Parent
Re:Uneven coverage? (Score:5, Informative)
Start? As the saying goes, you must be new here. I'm sure at least some of these made fp:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/16/1246240&from=rss [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/30/1540203 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/mobile/08/08/19/1222226.shtml [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/16/1246240&from=rss [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/04/1953225&from=rss [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/21/2036240&from=rss [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/12/0518244&from=rss [slashdot.org]
So, in answer to your question, nothing will change. We will continue to get whatever stories happen to be in the geek press posted to the front page (sometimes more than once!), and people with axes to grind will continue to whine that Slashdot is either giving too much attention to the target of their derision, or not enough to their platform of choice.
Parent
Re:Uneven coverage? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that other notebook doesn't run Windows then yes.
the EeeePC, Dell9, and many other netbooks with Linux options made it to the front page.
It is only Windows notebooks that get ignored because they are frankly all the same.
Apple has come up with some interesting things like their power adapter and now this case.
Parent
Re:13" MP (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Refurb Price Drops! (Score:5, Informative)
Yesterday a refurb (current generation) 15.4" MBP was $1699 (Discounted from $1999). Right now it's at $1349.
Multitouch, matte screen, etc.
Store.apple.com.
Refurbed Macs (Lower left)
Scroll down.
Parent
Re:guess how many mouse buttons it has (Score:5, Informative)
The glass trackpad *is* the buttons, and not like tapping to do a click.
It works in a similar way to the ipod wheel, the corners move down when you press it. Watch the video on the macbook page. I was afraid of that too, but it really is quite nice.
Parent
Re:Argh... (Score:5, Funny)
Double-clicking is a bit harder, but with a mallet and a bit of practice you'll have it down.
Parent
Steve...YOUR A TWIT!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well there went my hope that they'd finally offer us two-buttons.
*sighs*
There is nothing I hate more than having to use a trackpad as a click-button. You try to move the cursor and open up half a dozen links accidentally.
I nearly sent back my Dell until we found drivers that let me turn that feature off. :(
Steve...YOUR A TWIT!!!
Is anyone else actually looking forward to the day that Steve Jobs retires? Every computer Apple now makes either looks like a hunk of metal and glass or a cheese grater; its brutalist architecture for the PC, and it's just as ugly on computers as it is on buildings.
It's also painfully obvious that he doesn't give a rat-fuck about what end users want; note the number of mouse buttons on the new laptops.
Jobs built, and then re-built, this company into what it is, but I'm tired of all the computer models being his personal art project. You can expect excellence in design from Apple without this depressing, Bauhaus case design that Apple seems addicted to now. We're getting German worker housing in a PC, and paying a premium for it. Apple computers used to be beautiful and original. I love my eMac... it's instantly recognizable as an Apple with its white plastic and round curves. Now all of Apple's computers are dark, gun-metal slabs. I seriously wonder if Jobs and Ive spend all their time shooting heroin and listening to Goth music in the dark now.
Parent
Re:Argh... (Score:5, Insightful)
But it can tell which finger applied the pressure, and tell the difference between a left and a right click.
No it can't. It can tell which fingers are touching it. But it cannot tell the difference between pressing with your right finger or your left finger if both fingers are in contact. To perform a right click with the Mighty Mouse you have to lift up with your left finger and click with the right.
This, in a word, sucks.
Hopefully the MacBook trackpads are better. Sounds like they are. But the Mighty Mouse is just utterly horrible.
Parent
Re:Argh... (Score:5, Interesting)
No it can't. It can tell which fingers are touching it. But it cannot tell the difference between pressing with your right finger or your left finger if both fingers are in contact. To perform a right click with the Mighty Mouse you have to lift up with your left finger and click with the right.
I didn't believe you so I grabbed my mighty mouse and right clicked: worked fine, no issue. Then I realized that my left finger was slightly lifted. I actually had to concentrate to keep my left finger down while I right clicked to see the issue you are complaining about.
Parent
I'm a sysadmin in a design agency (Score:5, Informative)
Where I work we have 45 Macs. Of those 35 people have now switched to plain jane Logitech LX optical mice because the Apple mouse is so spectacularly bad. People get wrist cramps having permanently hold the left finger away when right clicking, the shape of the mouse is painful for many of them over time, and to top it all, the little scroll ball invariably gunks up with finger sweat and dirt after a while and you can only clean it so many times before the ball wears away and no longer maintains contact to the little slide wheels inside the mouse.
The Apple mouse is a terrible product, and its bluetooth pendant is even worse. the battery life is so bad that most people who have ehm and use them every day have to replace the batteries about once a month. I switched long ago to a Logitech LX-7 wireless which has used the same set of batteries for about 8 months.
I like Apple's products, and even own a Mac Pro tower myself, but I get really tired of people praising every thing Apple does simply because it's Apple.
Parent
Re:No firewire on the MacBook (non-Pro) (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm wondering about the rational behind that decision. After all, isn't the ability to use iMovie to make your own home movies a big selling point for the consumer level Macs?
Without a firewire interface, iMovie (and by extension iDVD) seems like it would be useless.
Parent
Definitely a known problem--hence the redesign (Score:5, Informative)
Dented and flexed cases in the AL Powerbooks and Macbook Pros are a pretty well known problem. Drop it just right onto concrete or tile, even from a pretty short height, and you might find yourself with a big dent or an unusable optical drive. This is an unfortunate side effect of using such thin, stamped AL for the case.
This is a big reason they redesigned the case. The 3-D milling allows very precise placement of material, which should produce a stiffer case for the same weight. But also take a look at how they designed the case. The bottom half used to be a single "tub" of aluminum, with a separate piece for the "deck." Now the sides are attached to the deck, with a separate piece for the very bottom surface. This creates stronger corners, and an easily-replacable bottom surface if a dent does occur.
Also, take a look at where they put the optical bay. This is one of the weakest parts of the structure because it's a big hole in the sidewall. Again, the milling should allow them to thicken the border of the disc port a bit, to stiffen it up. And it's placed directly over the battery, which is one of the strongest and most solid parts of the computer.
I think the new design should be a lot more resistant to stupid dings and expensive fixes.
Parent
Re:Style over function in announcements (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you've missed the point then.
The new metallic body has all sorts of "function" in it. It's lighter AND stronger at the same time. I don't know about you, but have you ever picked up a cheap plastic dell? Next time you do, hold it from the two ends and give it a twist. It'll scare you. Now try that with the old Macbook Air (the first laptop to use this unibody design).
Doesn't twist does it?!
I'm more than willing to pay a little extra for that "style" (or "function" to some people .. like me!)
That's just 1 example. Was MagSafe just stylish too? Ask my brother-in-law and his wife how many times that magsafe saved their laptops with their two kids running around the house.
It's quite obvious to me, and I'm surprised by the inability of slashdot'ers today to "think" about it. Apple now uses commodity hardware. You can get the same crap in a Dell right? So how on earth would they differentiate themselves by just playing the specs game? They can't. And it doesn't maker any sense to. There are umpteen companies that already do. What they do is innovate AROUND those standard parts when they construct a consumer device.
Hence, you get things like MagSafe and Glass trackpad (which I'm super excited about, because if it's anything like my iPhone, I'm gonna love it) and now the unibody!
If another person compares a Dell to this, I'm gonna puke. Seriously, until you find a Dell with the above features, please don't bother. If you're too cheap to pay for the extra features, then great, just say so, don't try to convince me that your $200 cheaper Dell is the same, cuz trust me, in a day to day usage test, it'll fail more epically (is that even a word?) than you can imagine.
P.S. Have you ever seen the design of the Apple power brick with the interchange prongs/cord? If you haven't. That alone is worth the price difference. Why other laptop manufactures can't make a better power brick is beyond me.
Parent