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.
New Macbook Pro for Leopard?
- Thread starter silenthill33
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is a very valid point digital skunk. I know AT&T has the "largest" number of subscribers, but I thought they had the best coverage as well. I am certain they do in my area, and the coverage has been flawless anywhere I go, but you very well may be right that sprint is better as I have never tried them. I think the iPhone as a phone could be a lot better, but I am thankful for what it is, as it could def. be a lot worse too!
Hahahaha, thats funny, because I'm the one going to NYU Stern, and Interning at one of the biggest corporations in the world. But that's alright, I'm amounting to nothing. If that were true, then I should basically change my name to silenthill33 and go on forums and look for fights with false information that I couldn't even back up. But that's ok. I feel sorry for you, if that's all you have going for you. I'll let you "win". Hahahaha
I LOLed at this no offense. Quad Core in a laptop is too power consuming. Furthermore, intel did not release any information about laptops using Quad Core.
The new MBPs is considered a relatively big upgrade. Quad Core currently is for desktop (power users)
New Chipset, new screens for 15.4in (LED), HD resolution for 17 inch, new graphics card (8600M GT), new standard RAM, faster harddrives all in the same price...
so no
you're not going to see a new MBP in leopard. Maybe Jan 2008, but not with your specs. (That will probably be 2-3 years later)
Leopard is not demanding, because it supports even G4 processors. Also, people who tested Leopard is within specs of the software requirements!
I've been running Leopard 9A466 on my SR MBP for the past few days. Without going into detail (darn NDAs), let's just say performance isn't a problem! 
it's not too power consuming, its just an added feature, powerful processing and an egg fryer when you flip it over.
Whatever you have to tell yourself md1626...whatever you have to tell yourself. You go to NYU? No wonder you're such a pri*k. lol, thats funny, I completely expected you to be from somewhere like that. It's almost as funny as your post. And saying I have nothing else going? Retard, you are the one that keeps wasting your "precious" time posting here when you could be doing something "important" for your "big company", which I frankly would believe the sky is purple with pink clouds before I believe that. So why don't you do us both a favor, go back to your wanna be college, and quit posting here. I'm sure you can keep making up lies about your life, and none of us honestly have a way to disprove it, but I think we both know the truth don't we?
silenthill33 - why are you trying to control people's responses in this topic? You created this topic, but by no means do you "own" it. People are free to post their opinions - and I understand why some peoples posts were basically saying "duh..."
Also, it's obvious you are here just to pick fights rather than discuss the MacBook Pro, which "your" topic was meant to do so.
Back on topic, or go somewhere else to call people names.
Also, it's obvious you are here just to pick fights rather than discuss the MacBook Pro, which "your" topic was meant to do so.
Back on topic, or go somewhere else to call people names.
Does it make you feel better to insult someone just because the college they go to isn't necessarily an elite school or something?
After reading this lovely flame fest, I just wanted to give my 2 cents. (heh, like anyone really wants my opinion)
The OP started out as the good guy of this thread on page one. Someone (don't remember who) made a fairly rude reply, and OP tried to counter. The OP really wasn't countering other people's posts. Then, people started to get mad at him in response to that focused counter-post. So, in part one, some of you should really be ashamed of yourselves, you provoked a flame war. BUT! Once the OP got irritated (and OP could've easily stayed cool if he'd wanted to) things spiraled out with his angry responses and now this is a flame fest.
Right, soooo... me blowing hot air.
The OP started out as the good guy of this thread on page one. Someone (don't remember who) made a fairly rude reply, and OP tried to counter. The OP really wasn't countering other people's posts. Then, people started to get mad at him in response to that focused counter-post. So, in part one, some of you should really be ashamed of yourselves, you provoked a flame war. BUT! Once the OP got irritated (and OP could've easily stayed cool if he'd wanted to) things spiraled out with his angry responses and now this is a flame fest.
Right, soooo... me blowing hot air.
"Mooly Eden, GM of Intel's mobile platform group, said that we won't see these quad cores in business class laptops for a while, even being honest enough to admit that there aren't enough multi-threaded applications out there to justify it. In practically the same breath, PC World mentions that the chip will target high-level gaming laptops, which is cool because gamers will no doubt lap the new chips up: even if gaming is for the moment a very much single-threaded activity."
Shows promise but highly unlikely that Apple would incorporate it into their laptops.
my bad....I guess I missed it somewhere in tomshardware.com
thanks for the update
cheers