MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Dec 30, 08 - 12:06 pm Comment from: rabid_doug

ready to buy one.

first post!

Wow, so the 17incher has twice the number of duo-balls ...

Dec 30, 08 - 12:10 pm Comment from: Randian

From David Flynn's lips to Gawd's ears!

i want a i7 iMac lol

Snapidy snap snap?

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.

My precious.

I have a 15" now and I can't believe how much faster it is than my old 17" MacBook Pro. I must have the quad core 17".

I must! I must!


But then, if everything is moving to the stupid cloud, who needs all this computing power?

For the money Apple charges it better start at the:
Q9450 45 nm 12MB 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz
With a possible upgrade to the:
Q9650 45 nm 12MB L2 3.00 GHz 1333 MHz
Not the lame:
Q9000 45 nm 6MB 2.00 GHz 1066 MHz

These should also find there way into the new iMac!

Dec 30, 08 - 12:30 pm Comment from: silverwarloc

I just hope this comes true. My daughter has been waiting for a long time to rip the fingers of my 15" Macbook Pro.

Ok, we are about the get the 17 inch! Whoop- how about the FIREWIRE on the MacBook. Come on guys.

I rather have a small net book to throw in the pack than a hunking quad core portable desktop.

Dec 30, 08 - 12:44 pm Comment from: HMCIV

@ silverwarloc

Your Macbook Pro has fingers? Good Lord that's creepy.

Dec 30, 08 - 12:50 pm Comment from: doc

Is it just me? Am I the only one out here that hates pro because it will not fit in my backpack?

Dec 30, 08 - 01:02 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

Quad 17" Pro?

I'll be on it like white on rice.

Dec 30, 08 - 01:03 pm Comment from: jonahan

@doc My 17" fits just fine in my backpack. Maybe you need to upgrade your small backpack?

Dec 30, 08 - 01:13 pm Comment from: mcdeans

@doc

> Am I the only one out here that hates pro because it will not fit in my backpack?

Stop using a net backpack.

@doc

I'm guessing that you specifically mean the 17" MBP, right? I've got a 15" MBP and a Swiss brand laptop backpack and it fits perfectly. It accompanies me pretty much everywhere...even now that I'm out of college.

Dec 30, 08 - 01:30 pm Comment from: JadisOne

I wonder if this is going to be faster than that famed PowerBook G5 from several years ago?

I'll take two but only if they have a matte screen.

Dec 30, 08 - 01:41 pm Comment from: MacintoshSoftwareList.com

Uhm, 17 inch laptop? Ever heard of a desktop?

Dec 30, 08 - 01:45 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

Doesn't the iMac use many "portable" parts? Would this not be an excellent engine for the top-of-the-line iMac? I think the 2.66 GHz Q9450 (45 nm 12MB 1333 MHz) would be an excellent choice for the faster 24", with the 3GHz model for the "monster" at the top. But ... there are quite a few less expensive possibilities below that.
A Quad running 2.55 GHz or faster would be a powerful argument for replacing my Dual G5 (2.3 GHz) so I can give it to my son, who could then give one of his G4s to his nephews. Trickle-down computing works when they Just Won't DIE ! ! !

Dec 30, 08 - 01:50 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

@MacintoshSoftwareList.com

The day I'm willing to pack my desktop in my car and haul it out to 5 job sites per day is the day I'm willing to entertain your silly comment.

Dec 30, 08 - 02:17 pm Comment from: Predrag

sixvodkas:

I don't think he was talking to you. It is clear that today, majority of people buy laptops, even though only fraction of those laptops ever leave home. Some get moved around the house (a visit to the john, to the dining table, to the living room couch), but most of them end up in fact doing desktop duty. Getting a 17" laptop for such duty is a waste of money (to the tune of about 40%).

Naw ... aint gonna happen. Apple is waiting for me to buy a 15" MacBook Pro. Only AFTER I buy will they release/announce the 17" MacBook Pro. At least, that's been my frustrating history with Apple Releases. Until I break down and buy a 15 inch MBP Apple simply won't release the 17" unit. So ... don't hold your breaths, because I'm turning black and blue waiting but won't give up holding breath for at least another six months ... so Apple won't be releasing a 17" MBP until AFER June.

@ RevNeal,

I hear ya buddy!

I'm that way with 24" iMacs.

Dec 30, 08 - 04:34 pm Comment from: doc

@everyone who responded

Thanks! Maybe I do need a larger backpack, but the one I have is about as big as I want to carry. Once I fill it with a bunch of books and paperwork it weighs about 70 pounds, and then I don't want to put my laptop in it because it would be on the bottom (against my back) and I don't want to warp the screen (iBook G4) which already no longer will lock closed. I may likely be one of the oldest every day backpack users still around. Never graduated from university because I couldn't stand the Bv11$h1+ any longer. As a double Major in Psychology and Philosophy, I desperately wanted to be the only fool in the room. Old line hacker. I've broken the straps on A BUNCH of backpacks since the 70's. Really appreciate the help.

P.S.
The only thing's I'll use with wheels will also contain a power plant.

non-news - the quad mobile was announced in august and supposedly was in HPs lappy sometime after that. Its surprising some are just finding out about quad mobiles - it should have been front page everywhere for way longer than it was.

Dec 30, 08 - 08:23 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

Cool…
Wake me when Apple releases a Rev.B quad-core MacBook Pro.

Dec 30, 08 - 08:29 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

Gee doc, as a 70's, ice climber, rock climber and mountaineer...

Proper loading of a backpack means ALWAYS loading the heaviest items CLOSE to your back as high as possible. NEVER buy one of those crappy bulky book bags... typical laptop "backpack". They will mess up your back.

Get a climber's pack and pop your MacBook Pro into a neoprene sleeve first.

I actually use an Arcteryx Blade 13 for my 15" MBP. Very sleek, compact and slim. I take it everywhere.... walk, bike, plane, train, bus and subway with it!

Dec 30, 08 - 09:45 pm Comment from: doc

@Mr Reeee

Climb and hike some myself. Know all I need to about load distribution. I don't bring along all the books when moving more than 50 miles or 10 hours away from a bathroom. Thanks anyway!

A 2.0ghz Quad Core is NOT going to run faster than the current fastest dual-core macbook pros. You have to look at clock speed, not the number of cores.

If you're video editing or playing games, the four cores will all be used at 2.0 GHz. It is a common mistake to think the computer will run at 8.0Ghz. But if you're running day-to-day tasks, a 2.8Ghz Dual-core will run faster.

Personally I don't think Apple will release a MBP with this chip.

Dec 31, 08 - 02:26 am Comment from: emanon

Here we go... Cue the matte vs. glossy screen comments.

Dec 31, 08 - 12:41 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

Informed said: "A 2.0ghz Quad Core is NOT going to run faster than the current fastest dual-core macbook pros. You have to look at clock speed, not the number of cores." ... which is true. Though ... I think the "four 2GHz cores" was a bit of a mis-statement. "2.xGHz" might have been clearer. Even then, the speed of the core is pretty much what rules. Unless the code is designed to run on multiple cores. Or unless you are multi-tasking. I could run three copies of Folding@Home and still have a core available to play WoW - all at "full speed".

I'm a matte screen user, but matte is dead.

Glossy glass screens are the future. Most keyboards will be dead soon too - allowing touch screen at some point.

Think iPhone for your laptop type computer.

All sounds lovely. But if it has glossy screen and no firewire, forget it.