MB38 0 #51 February 14, 2006 Well, if you want a MacBook Pro now, you'll get a faster machine [2.16 or 1.83] for the same price.I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #52 February 14, 2006 I use Aperture (eduation discounted) and Photoshop CS in conjunction with one another. I like Aperture for some things, but prefer iPhoto for other things. (I'm able to deduct the expense of Aperture, so it makes it seem a little more worth it). Check i out... I think it's kinda hit or miss with peoples opinions. Kinda like Final Cut versus iMovie. Some people really like iMovie, others like FCP! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #53 February 14, 2006 Well that's cool that I've been upgraded, but not so cool that it's going to be a few more weeks till it ships. Why the sudden change?Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #54 February 14, 2006 QuoteI like Aperture for some things, but prefer iPhoto for other things. Like what?Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MB38 0 #55 February 15, 2006 QuoteWell that's cool that I've been upgraded, but not so cool that it's going to be a few more weeks till it ships. Why the sudden change?Most likely "if we can offer more bang for the same buck, why not?"I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #56 February 15, 2006 QuoteMost likely "if we can offer more bang for the same buck, why not?" That's not the way most companies act... My first thought was that something was wrong with the 1.67 processor, so they had to make the 1.83 the minimum system. Just seemed odd that the day before the systems are scheduled to ship they suddenly change everything and delay shipping by a couple weeks. Oh well...I'm a gadget whore anyway...I canceled my order for the dual 1.67 (now 1.83) MacBook Pro and reordered a dual 2.0 MacBook Pro. I was concerned about not having the best video ram having an effect on how I would be able to process videos and pictures. Plus this way it is a standard system so no sticky situations about trying to return a custom system if I don't like it. On a plus note I'm heading up to NY for a couple days, so I'll be playing in the Apple store in Syracuse for a while this Friday.Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MB38 0 #57 February 15, 2006 My honest bet is that they wanted it to be 1.83 and 2.16 off the bat, but Intel couldn't promise shipments of the faster processor. They announced different specs, knowing that bumping the speed will be handled better than dropping the speed. Years ago Motorola screwed up and couldn't get 500MHz processors in time... so they had to back off to 450MHz at the high end. Lesson learned.I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freekflyguy 0 #58 February 15, 2006 Doesnt help the fact that my shipping date has changed from 3 Mar to 29 Mar. I was expecting to have it in time for my trip to Perris on 16 Mar. I cant understand why i recieved an email from Apple stating that the MBP was shipping yet my order is gonna be shipped later than originally estimated. Spoke to customer services and they were no use at all just told me to wait and see. Not at all what I would have expected from Apple. BuzzIt's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MB38 0 #59 February 16, 2006 This is pretty normal for Apple releasing big new products. They'll ship them at the last possible moment and there will be delays for months. It's happened time and time again. In the past, Motorola and IBM couldn't produce processors to meet demand. Hopefully Intel isn't doing the same.I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #60 February 16, 2006 QuoteUp to 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo 667MHz frontside bus and main memory PCI Express architecture I'm not too up to speed on Mac hardware, how do these specs compare to say a PC with a P4 2.16 ghz chip in it? Is it faster of the same? ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #61 February 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteUp to 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo 667MHz frontside bus and main memory PCI Express architecture I'm not too up to speed on Mac hardware, how do these specs compare to say a PC with a P4 2.16 ghz chip in it? Is it faster of the same? Two chips versus one? I think two could do more, faster. For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murrays 0 #62 February 16, 2006 As already mentioned dual core gives you two processors. I looked at a Dell laptop with the same processor chip and it also has 667 Front Side Bus.-- Murray "No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #63 February 16, 2006 I just configured a Dell laptop the same way my MacBook Pro is set up to come...the Dell was $312 more than the Mac, not counting the antivirus needed for the Dell as well.Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #64 February 16, 2006 QuoteI just configured a Dell laptop the same way my MacBook Pro is set up to come...the Dell was $312 more than the Mac, not counting the antivirus needed for the Dell as well. That is typical. Macs are generally less expensive than comparable PCs. For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #65 February 16, 2006 I would'nt go totally AV less on that Mac as of right now Quotehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/16/mac_os-x_virus/ BTW, no AV vendor has annouced full support of the IntelMac's as of last week.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murrays 0 #66 February 16, 2006 From a thread linked on Macrumors regarding the first OS X Virus: You can read all of it here. --------->>> You cannot be infected by this unless you do all of the following: 1) Are somehow sent (via email, iChat, etc.) or download the "latestpics.tgz" file 2) Double-click on the file to decompress it 3) Double-click on the resulting file to "open" it ...and then for most users, you must also enter your Admin password. You cannot simply "catch" the virus. Even if someone does send you the "latestpics.tgz" file, you cannot be infected unless you unarchive the file, and then open it. ---->>>>> In order to install, you have to be logged in as an Admin user or enter an Admin password. I just set up a new user as Admin and removed my Admin privileges from my regular account. Just to protect my self from myself in case I should somehow come in contact with this before a fix is available.-- Murray "No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #67 February 16, 2006 I'm not too worried about those kinds of virus'...I'm typically very cautious about opening any types of attachments, even if from people I know. The security built into the Mac's seems to be pretty good...if that changes I might look into some AV software.Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #68 February 16, 2006 QuoteDoesnt help the fact that my shipping date has changed from 3 Mar to 29 Mar. I know how you feel. My original ship date was 15 Feb...on 14 Feb I get the email about the delay. You must have ordered yours pretty late...they changed my ship date to 28 Feb, and then it changed again when I altered my order to the 2.0 MacBook, but my ship date is still 16 Mar. Quoted from MB38 in the 2nd post in this thread: QuoteYou also won't get a MacBook Pro until late February at best... most likely [well] after that. Seems Brook knows what he's talking about!Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MB38 0 #69 February 17, 2006 Quote Seems Brook knows what he's talking about! Yeah, I hear he's kind of a geek.I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #70 February 17, 2006 QuoteAs already mentioned dual core gives you two processors. I looked at a Dell laptop with the same processor chip and it also has 667 Front Side Bus. Aye I understand that but i'm looking for something to compare it to. Say, is 2 x 2.5 ghz chips comparible to say a P4 5 ghz chip (if they existed). Just so I can get an image in my head of how fast the thing would run. I understand that the way AMD dual chips work is different to the way Apple do, Apple being the better way I believe? Can anyone give us the low down? Cheers Dave ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vdschoor 0 #71 February 17, 2006 Quote Aye I understand that but i'm looking for something to compare it to. Say, is 2 x 2.5 ghz chips comparible to say a P4 5 ghz chip (if they existed). Just so I can get an image in my head of how fast the thing would run. It's not a 1+1 thing with processors.. the computer will do parallel computing, which means that there is two time 2.5Ghz available for computations... this is a SUPER simplified view of what dual processors do.. Say if your computer (single processor) has an application running that uses 90% of the processor.. now other applications you start only have the remaining 10% available to them.. In a dual processor machine, the program would only take up about 45% of the processors time (if the app is written correctly that is.. ) cause it will use some of the first and some of the second processor.. which means you still have 55% left for other applications.. Again this is a super simplified explanation.. So.. what you'll see with dual processors.. your applications will keep running at "top speed" longer before the machine starts slowing down.. Hope this makes sense.. If someone has a better explanation.. go ahead Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #72 February 17, 2006 Dual core does not mean 2 physically different processors, it means that a single chip is running as 2 chips. Any time you have multiple processors some speed is lost in handing off threads to the correct processor. Its not as simple as a dual core 2.5 is the same speed as a single core 5.0 My understanding is they are basically taking the Intel chips that could go to a PC and dropping them into Mac hardware.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MB38 0 #73 February 17, 2006 The explanation goes back to the old "MHz Myth". Just because something has bigger numbers attached to it does not mean that it's faster. The current Duo processors used by Apple and PC companies alike are significantly faster than Intel's previous offerings... even if those previous offerings [read: P4] had bigger numbers [read: 3+GHz] attached to them. The example you made for yourself - AMD vs Intel - fits perfectly. It's not that they [AMD] use some magical algorithm that makes a seemingly "slower" processor faster, it's that the numbers don't always tell the story. Many companies - including Apple, AMD, Sun, etc - have described their own [shockingly similar] explanation for the MHz myth. While the clock speed of two identical processors is a great tool to measure their speeds relative to each other, different types of processors work in such different ways that there is no way to compare without having a good 'ol fashioned Photoshop bake-off or gigantic-video-file-render-race. Now, the current duo chips are not meant to compete with the old "top of the line" chips. The duo is a faster "mid-high range" processor. So the top of the line [P4/AMD/Power Mac G5] will still be faster than the current fastest Duo. That's not a failing on Intel's part, it's just that the duo is not meant to be the fastest processor out there. It's merely the first of a new generation. I hope that adds a little clarity.I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miami 0 #74 February 18, 2006 So just got back from the Apple store where I got to play with Aperture for a while. All in all I like it, and am going to get it when the universal version is released. It mirrors a lot of what iPhoto does, but expands a little more on the editing you can do. The big selling points for me were the ease of editing RAW format pictures and the much greater degree of organization I'll be able to acquire with it. They also had a couple of the iMac's with the dual intel 2.0's in them...should I expect my MacBook to run that fast? Cause those things were smokin! The built in iPhoto with Photo booth was pretty damn cool as well. Damn I can't wait to get my Mac!Miami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MB38 0 #75 February 18, 2006 Yeah, that's what you can expect from your MacBook... with the exception of the hard drive speed and graphics card capabilities. The HD will be the only one that has an effect on your photo work and it won't be major.I really don't know what I'm talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
