Comments on: New MacBook Pro and Mac OS X.5 (Leopard)

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:53:12 +0000

Andy, whatever rationale it takes to drive in the slow lane.

Let me tell you, a 7200 rpm drive will leave a carbon lapprint!

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:43:12 +0000

Richard, I’d be more worried about the threat of exploding batteries than the effects of my laptop’s heat emission on my fitness. Keep in mind that a slower drive is probably better for your carbon footprint. ;-)

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:46:18 +0000

Andy, I’d worry less about the drive’s premature failure than your lap getting burned or your sperm count going down.

Of course at my age sperm count isn’t a concern, maybe I should opt for the faster drive!

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:04:16 +0000

Richard, thank you for your awesome feedback! These are the observation of an experienced Mac user. These questions are hardly answered by most professional reviewers.
I guess heat could be an issue in the tight space of a laptop and might promote the disk’s premature failure. Will definitely keep this hint in mind.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:58:12 +0000

Andy: When I had a 7200 RPM drive in my older machine for a while I found it too hot and it also seemed like the battery wasn’t lasting as long (that might have been psychological rather than actual).

Aperture is a disk intensive application but Lightroom is less so, at least so it seems, so I figured I could back off on speed a bit there.

That was my hunch anyway. So far so good although I’m not sure what the faster drive would have done at this point, maybe it would have been cool and great, who knows.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:32:47 +0000

Richard, unusual brief comment from me this time. ;-)

Why did you choose the 250 GB 5.400 rpm hard-disk over the 200 GB 7.200 rpm one? Is the performance boost negligible in comparison to the 50GB extra storage?

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:17:21 +0000

Scott: Well, I guess I feel better that it’s not just me, but, I feel bad that Apple’s historic attention to detail is showing signs of age. I know as they’ve become more successful they’ve moved manufacturing from Taiwan to China so maybe that’s it. That would be a bummer although my guess is it’s correctable. It could just be an inspection issue: they’re letting through what they used to reject.

I agree, great computer, but this stuff bothers me given my long history as a Mac user.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:05:54 +0000

Richard,

I know what you mean by Fit and Finish of the MacBook Pro’s. I’ve had a 15″ PowerBook for about four years and bought a new MBP about a month ago. The Powerbook edges were nice and smooth but the MBP has a few sharp edges on the plastic trim. All in all I love the MBP but it could use a bit more attention to detail.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:43:18 +0000

Andy, if you’re going to be using Aperture I recommend getting the fastest machine you can with the fastest and most memory laden video card and put as much memory in it as you can. In the MacBook Pro world, that’s the 2.6 ghz model of 15″ and get the 4 gig memory upgrade. It’s only a bit more than what I paid for mine for a bit more processing speed.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:39:46 +0000

Thank you Richard for the super fast feedback! :-)

I was thinking that the lower resolution screen of the 15″ MBP might look a bit crammed. On the other hand it might be easier to read.

I would have seriously considered the 24″ iMac, if Apple would offer a matte screen option. I hate glossy screens. The new aluminum iMacs are said to be almost impossible to calibrate with colorimeters like my Gretag iOne Display.
It’s good that you pointed out the graphics card and Aperture aspect, as this totally rules out the iMac.

A reason for the move back to Apple is Aperture. Recently played with it at a friend’s house. Although it’s not perfect, it has features that I value more and don’t have in Lightroom. For example I find Aperture’s user interface more intuitive. I guess it’s a matter of taste. I don’t expect Adobe will remedy the grips that I have with LR in version 2. Thus why should I upgrade. I’d rather spend the money on a copy of Aperture.
I believe iMacs incorporate a very similar hardware to MBPs and hence the top limit for RAM is 4GB at the moment. Not sure if this is going to change with the next revision. On the other hand I am not sure if I can justify to spend the extra amount on a MacPro. Or better go along the step-by-step upgrade/extension route like you do.