Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

got your C2D MBP? please tell us....

Bill Gates said:
How do you have a business account? :confused:
Click to expand...

Well, to tell you the truth, It's my mom's. (I'm still in school)
She is allowed to get one home computer each year. What happens is her company gets an invoice for the purchase, and then it gets deducted from her bonus. This all happens before income tax, and she would usually get only half that money because of tax anyway. This all leaves me with a huge discount (nearly 50%) in the end.
 
speaking of HD performance...

any pro audio people reading thie thread?

I ordered the 17" with a 7200 rpm 100 GB drive, but am wondering if I could get acceptable performance with the 5400 rpm 160GB drive.

I would be using the m-audio FW device.

Thanks for any help.
 
fustercluck said:
any pro audio people reading thie thread?

I ordered the 17" with a 7200 rpm 100 GB drive, but am wondering if I could get acceptable performance with the 5400 rpm 160GB drive.

I would be using the m-audio FW device.

Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...
The 5400RPM drive is faster for sustained transfer rates. Both drives, however, will perform well for your purposes.
 
fustercluck said:
any pro audio people reading thie thread?

I ordered the 17" with a 7200 rpm 100 GB drive, but am wondering if I could get acceptable performance with the 5400 rpm 160GB drive.

I would be using the m-audio FW device.

Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...
I've done some professional recording, 3 of which are in mainstream production...

From SOME experience, I can tell you this:

For one of my recording sessions (last year), I was forced to use my portable iBook G3 with a 4200rpm drive, with a FW input device...

Surprisingly, I had good performance!
No lag, no distortion, no nothing...
I was impressed to say the least.

So I have no doubt that the 160GB 5400rpm HD would do you well, especially if it does indeed have PMR

Cheers!


-TYC-
 
Multimedia said:
17" Screen is 33.7% Larger not 22%.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that number from? If the screens are the same aspect ratio, which they are, and one is 17" diagonal and the other 15.4", then the areas are related by 17^2 / 15.4^2 = ~1.22. Or am I missing something?

The 17 does have 36% more pixels than the 15.4. This implies either a higher dpi, or that the 17 is actually a bit larger. To get the area ratio you quote, though, the 17 would have to have a 17.8" diagonal, which I am pretty sure it does not.

However, if it were 33.7% bigger, that would change my previous calcluations, so that the screen would only have to draw 40% of the power for a 15 to last as long on one battery as a 17. Still probably higher than the maximum fraction the screen can draw.
 
bob_hearn said:
Where are you getting that number from? If the screens are the same aspect ratio, which they are, and one is 17" diagonal and the other 15.4", then the areas are related by 17^2 / 15.4^2 = ~1.22. Or am I missing something?

The 17 does have 36% more pixels than the 15.4. This implies either a higher dpi, or that the 17 is actually a bit larger. To get the area ratio you quote, though, the 17 would have to have a 17.8" diagonal, which I am pretty sure it does not.

However, if it were 33.7% bigger, that would change my previous calcluations, so that the screen would only have to draw 40% of the power for a 15 to last as long on one battery as a 17. Still probably higher than the maximum fraction the screen can draw.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between size and resolution.

15" = 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

17" = 1650x1050 = 1,732,500 pixels

1732500/1296000 = ~1.336 = +33.6 %

Get it?
 
Garden Knowm said:
How come you can't just go into the apple store and ask.. "Excuse me, is the 160 GB HD in the MBP just as fast as the 100 GB HD?" and get an answer from some one who actually knows...
Click to expand...

Well, it might be more reasonable (but still highly unlikely) to expect them to give you a good answer if they even sold machines with the 160 drive in the stores, which as far as I have seen they don't.

Edit - oh, I keep forgetting, the standard 17 has that drive. Yeah, it would be nice if they could give you a good answer. But the best you could hope for is that they would have been well informed. It's more reliable to get well informed yourself. These are no computer engineers; they're salespeople.
 
Just thought I'd let you guys know that the Toronto Sherway store had all three models in both screen types today at 3pm EST. Cheers[/QUOTE said:
BOTH SCREEN TYPES... you mean matte and glossy? or 15 inch and 17 inch..?

cheers
Click to expand...
 
Konfabulation said:
There is a difference between size and resolution.

15" = 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

17" = 1650x1050 = 1,732,500 pixels

1732500/1296000 = ~1.336 = +33.6 %

Get it?
Click to expand...

That's pixels; I was talking about area. Which is what matters if you're talking about power comparisons at equivalent screen brightness. Get it?

But I did misread 1.336... in google calculator as 136% above; sorry about that.
 
bob_hearn said:
That's pixels; I was talking about area. Which is what matters if you're talking about power comparisons at equivalent screen brightness. Get it?

But I did misread 1.336... in google calculator as 136% above; sorry about that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry too. I need to read your posts more carefullly:eek: .
 
Konfabulation said:
3 models = low end 15.4", high end 15.4" and 17"

both screen types = matte, glossy
Click to expand...

you saw this with your own eyes..?? i just tried to call the store and they are closed.. or not answering..

cheers

i think this is the second report of a 17 inch.. the first report was bogus..
cheers

I would really like to get a 17 inch (fully loaded) before wednesday!!!
 
Konfabulation said:
Well, to tell you the truth, It's my mom's. (I'm still in school)
She is allowed to get one home computer each year. What happens is her company gets an invoice for the purchase, and then it gets deducted from her bonus. This all happens before income tax, and she would usually get only half that money because of tax anyway. This all leaves me with a huge discount (nearly 50%) in the end.
Click to expand...

May I just politely say that I hate you now?
 
Garden Knowm said:
you saw this with your own eyes..?? i just tried to call the store and they are closed.. or not answering..

cheers

i think this is the second report of a 17 inch.. the first report was bogus..
cheers

I would really like to get a 17 inch (fully loaded) before wednesday!!!
Click to expand...

the store is closed right now ... open at 10am tomorrow morning
no i didnt see it with my own eyes, but i asked the salesguy to check and he said they had them in all 3 models and 2 screen types. but as i said, this was at 3pm today and don't know what happened between then and closing time (5 pm). i also know they just got the shipment friday night / saturday morning. cheers
 
bob_hearn said:
Where are you getting that number from? If the screens are the same aspect ratio, which they are, and one is 17" diagonal and the other 15.4", then the areas are related by 17^2 / 15.4^2 = ~1.22. Or am I missing something?

The 17 does have 36% more pixels than the 15.4. This implies either a higher dpi, or that the 17 is actually a bit larger. To get the area ratio you quote, though, the 17 would have to have a 17.8" diagonal, which I am pretty sure it does not.

However, if it were 33.7% bigger, that would change my previous calcluations, so that the screen would only have to draw 40% of the power for a 15 to last as long on one battery as a 17. Still probably higher than the maximum fraction the screen can draw.
Click to expand...

You are correct on all counts. The physical area of the 17" is 22% larger than that of a 15" (15.4") screen. Given that the ratio of pixels is higher (1.36), it is clear that the 17" MBP's screen has smaller pixels. That's a good thing, because if the pixels were the same size as the on 15" MBP, the 17" MBP would need to be 1.2" wider and a 0.5" deeper than it is. In fact, Apple would have to call it an 18" MBP to avoid getting sued for false advertising:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back