I think you can still use the applecare on a machine you purchase in the store. You have not assigned a serial number to the applecare.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
got your C2D MBP? please tell us....
- Thread starter shecky
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you can still use the applecare on a machine you purchase in the store. You have not assigned a serial number to the applecare.
Even on auto-enroll plans? They didnt send me any paperwork/enroll numbers that I would be able to use.
mleary were you also an edu purchase? let me know what you hear, and Ill let you all know what my apple rep says, it is Sat. so who knows if He'll check his email on the weekend.
It will be really annoying if the 17's start arriving soon.
At the risk of upsetting people who are waiting for their 15" MacBooks, my rep. told me that my 17" was in production on thursday. Could this mean they temporarily stopped producing the 15's?
Oh S#$T - i have the sam config, ordered about the same time - i hope they don't screw me too since i'm going o/s for a month mid november!!!
What are apple doing?
Yeah i also ordered via Edu (K-12) - but my order status still says 'ship by Nov 8'..... so far at least.
ATI Radeon Mobile X1600 on the MPB do not have "Hypermemory"?
Soo.. Some questions about the ATI Radeon Mobile X1600:
Any differences between the 128MB, and the 256MB?
Can anyone confirm that the only difference between X1600 128MB contra 256MB is just the extra 128MB memory bump?
Is the specs (memory bandwidth, clock speeds and other features) on the two configurations exactly the same?
ATI's "Hypermemory" is not in OSX, but maybe in Windows XP?
The Acer 8210 is equiped with this videocard: "ATI Mobility™ Radeon® X1600 256MB/512MB Hypermemory".
Someone on this forum told me that MBP dont have the "Hypermemory"-feature. I am wondering if thats because of limitations with the OSX, or does the physical video card differ on the Acer vs the MBP?
Have someone checked if the MBP have the ability to use some of the system memory as video memory aka "Hypermemory" in Windows XP? If not, anyone care to do some research to find out.. Please?
Soo.. Some questions about the ATI Radeon Mobile X1600:
Any differences between the 128MB, and the 256MB?
Can anyone confirm that the only difference between X1600 128MB contra 256MB is just the extra 128MB memory bump?
Is the specs (memory bandwidth, clock speeds and other features) on the two configurations exactly the same?
ATI's "Hypermemory" is not in OSX, but maybe in Windows XP?
The Acer 8210 is equiped with this videocard: "ATI Mobility™ Radeon® X1600 256MB/512MB Hypermemory".
Someone on this forum told me that MBP dont have the "Hypermemory"-feature. I am wondering if thats because of limitations with the OSX, or does the physical video card differ on the Acer vs the MBP?
Have someone checked if the MBP have the ability to use some of the system memory as video memory aka "Hypermemory" in Windows XP? If not, anyone care to do some research to find out.. Please?
I can at least answer part of your question. People with both versions of the X1600 have run ATItool to confirm clockspeeds, and they were able to confirm that the clockspeeds themselves are identical. It really does just seem to be the VRAM that is different.
my order says -- Shipped on Nov 4, 2006 via FEDERAL EXPRESS --
guess who's gonna get his mbpro soon
Assuming yours is coming to the US, I think mine will be on the same plane... Mine missed the fedex cutoff today, but I'm assuming it'll ship either tomorrow or monday. My expected delivery is 11/8/06.
MacBook Pro 15.4" / 2GB RAM / 160 GB HD/ 2.16 GHZ C2D
I ordered Nov. 1st.
Thanks Zadillo
If this is so, the differences between the two graphics solutions is practically the same, in todays games that is..
Wow, thank you for that information..
If this is so, the differences between the two graphics solutions is practically the same, in todays games that is..
Mine updated with:
Nov 4, 2006 3:24 PM Picked up SHANGHAI CN Package received after FedEx cutoff
So I'm in the same boat waiting for my 15.4"/ 2.33 C2D/ 2GB RAM/ 200GB HD.
Ordered on the 1st as well, original ship date was the 6th.
I believe that it could still make a difference in some games; those that can take advantage of and sometimes even require 256MB of VRAM for higher quality textures, etc. (i.e. Company of Heroes specifically recommends a 256MB VRAM video card).
It would be nice to get some really concrete comparisons though, outside of benchmarks and the like.
VRAM: less = faster, more = slower.. Only in the past?
However, other graphics solutions in the past did earn some extra fps with 64MB rather than 128MB memory, thats because less memory operated faster. But that was probably just in the past?
If the the two graphics solutions have exactly the same speed, this wont matter on this particular case, will it?
Agreed, that would be nice!
However, other graphics solutions in the past did earn some extra fps with 64MB rather than 128MB memory, thats because less memory operated faster. But that was probably just in the past?
If the the two graphics solutions have exactly the same speed, this wont matter on this particular case, will it?
Matt, of course the 4200 rpm drive is slower. These message board "experts" are trying to use screwed up logic to convince themselves that something running at a slower speed will magically be faster - as if the 5400 rpm drives don't use the same conventions to speed up their seek/write times.
It's like saying that a truck stuck at 55 mph is faster than a car able to reach 100 mph because the latter has a smaller gas tank.
Then again, you might not need the extra speed. You should adjust your purchase to your own use case. Are you doing audio/video capture? Are you using your machine mostly for word processing and to surf the net? If the former, you'll get killed with the 4200 rpm drive. If the latter, you probably wouldn't notice a difference and would be better off with the extra storage. I don't think this is an "x is better than y" scenario. I do think this is an "x is generally faster than y" scenario though (even though there might be the isolated benchmark or two in which the slower drive somehow manages to outperform a faster drive).
Erm, it's more like comparing a satellite travelling in a low earth orbit at 4200mph and a satellite in a very high orbit travelling at 5400mph.
Which takes less time to travel around the earth?
I called the customer service line and the woman I spoke to was totally clueless and could not tell me any thing other than it will ship by the 29th but probably sooner... This is really frustrating.
for those of you doing a Fresh Install, How much space should I be seeing as used with just the OS and default programs installed?
ie, iWork, iLife, OSX,
Reason I ask, I loaded about 7Gb of Programs, and about 15 Gb of music/podcasts/etc and I'm down to 109Gb Free.
This is a 160 Drive with 149.05Gb (usable) showing in Sys Info.
ie, iWork, iLife, OSX,
Reason I ask, I loaded about 7Gb of Programs, and about 15 Gb of music/podcasts/etc and I'm down to 109Gb Free.
This is a 160 Drive with 149.05Gb (usable) showing in Sys Info.
cool, i am not in the states but my macbook pro is shipping to u.s so our machine will probably fly together
i think we might be lucky as it seemes the production line is for 17" now, some here who ordered the 15" even before mine got delivery bumped to 29 nov!! Erm, it's more like comparing a satellite travelling in a low earth orbit at 4200mph and a satellite in a very high orbit travelling at 5400mph.
Which takes less time to travel around the earth?
Erm, you used a better analogy, but you got it exactly wrong: the 4200 rpm drive has a larger area than the 5400. Hence my point.
My 17" with 3GB and 160GB disk is still showing a ship on Nov 7, so the idea that they are switing the line from 15 to 17 may be correct.
It doesn't have a larger area. The 200GB has a greater data density over the 160GB, which means that one revolution of the 200GB disc means more data gets read than the 160GB one.
At least, that's the point others were making
Doesn't sound like bad logic to ME. I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but it's certainly not screwed up logic.
Toshiba 200GB Gets Big Fast & Perpendicular All In One
1. Perpendicular drives are faster per revolution because the data is standing up rather than lying down so each bit is much closer to the next bit. Also way less prone to data loss in larger sizes. Access time is virtually the same 12ms vs. 10-11ms best access time in 7200 rpm LMR drives. So I don't think I will perceive that.
2. Then there's the overriding need for the biggest drive I can get inside. I'm a media hog so large files coming down the internet or from my HDV camcorder are always going to be filling it up. So I'm gonna be backing it up a lot too.
3. Slower rotating drives are cooler and consume less power so I may get longer battery life.
4. Perpendicular is the future and I like to have the future inside any time the future is NOW.
5. So I can get Biggest, fairly fast and Get Perpendicular if I buy the Toshiba MK2035GSS 200.
My thinking goes something like this:
1. Perpendicular drives are faster per revolution because the data is standing up rather than lying down so each bit is much closer to the next bit. Also way less prone to data loss in larger sizes. Access time is virtually the same 12ms vs. 10-11ms best access time in 7200 rpm LMR drives. So I don't think I will perceive that.
2. Then there's the overriding need for the biggest drive I can get inside. I'm a media hog so large files coming down the internet or from my HDV camcorder are always going to be filling it up. So I'm gonna be backing it up a lot too.
3. Slower rotating drives are cooler and consume less power so I may get longer battery life.
4. Perpendicular is the future and I like to have the future inside any time the future is NOW.
5. So I can get Biggest, fairly fast and Get Perpendicular if I buy the Toshiba MK2035GSS 200.
Actually for all of us who ordered the 17" and have been patiently waiting...
while hearing that all of the 15" machines are being delivered for the past two weeks...
it will be really nice to see ours delivered while those who ordered the 15" wait awhile
seriously...we hope they all start shipping sooner...could it be a delay due to short supply of the 2.33?
I'm so happy
I got my macbook pro a couple of days ago and returned it in less than 24 hours coz of some werid sounds that were coming out of the keyboard and the screen.
Dudes at the the retailers refused to give a replacement (of course) but after insisting they offered to give me a refund and not a replacement. weird, huh?
and so I have to wait a few days before we make the exchange of the money (refund) for the computer official.
And so eventhough i still have the computer in my hands, and have been guaranteed to get my refund in a couple of days, I am thinking right now in heading to another apple retailer to pick up another macbook pro.
I think I should wait a few days before actually buying a new macbook pro, but I can't wait. It's would suck to end up buying this new one and then getting a call from the first retailer saying that they will no longer give a refund despite being promised to get it.
very nice first experience with Apple.
I got my macbook pro a couple of days ago and returned it in less than 24 hours coz of some werid sounds that were coming out of the keyboard and the screen.
Dudes at the the retailers refused to give a replacement (of course) but after insisting they offered to give me a refund and not a replacement. weird, huh?
and so I have to wait a few days before we make the exchange of the money (refund) for the computer official.
And so eventhough i still have the computer in my hands, and have been guaranteed to get my refund in a couple of days, I am thinking right now in heading to another apple retailer to pick up another macbook pro.
I think I should wait a few days before actually buying a new macbook pro, but I can't wait. It's would suck to end up buying this new one and then getting a call from the first retailer saying that they will no longer give a refund despite being promised to get it.
very nice first experience with Apple.
The only reason I can think that would be the case (extra fps with a smaller amount of VRAM) would be that the quality settings would inherently be lower, and the graphics engine would probably be able to pump out higher fps because it didn't have to deal with larger textures, etc.
I think this would be sort of like how you will get more fps in just about any game with lower quality settings. I wouldn't think it would have as much to do with less memory itself operating faster.
Either way, I haven't really heard of that sort of benefit in more modern games.