| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Apple Introduces Macbook
Adam Hemphill, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
David Meyer, Photographer
 |
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 9:28 AM on 05.16.06 |
->> Very intriguing. My only concern would be the lack of a dedicated graphics card and the weight (5.2 lbs), which seems a bit heavy for a 13-inch notebook. That and the pricing scheme for the black version. $200 for 20GB of hard drive space and a different "paint job" seems a bit steep.
Overall, however, it seems like a solid machine at a very reasonable price. |
|
Adam Hemphill, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Willimantic | CT | US | Posted: 9:30 AM on 05.16.06 |
| ->> Apple also did away with their 1.83GHz MacBook Pro and added options for a glossy screen and only 512Mb of RAM. |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | United States | Posted: 10:27 AM on 05.16.06 |
| ->> Love the glossy screen and black enclosure, I'd almost like to see the pro models have some options like that. |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | United States | Posted: 10:35 AM on 05.16.06 |
| ->> Oh wow, just read you CAN get the glossy screen on the 17" pro model now! |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 05.16.06 |
->> Okay, so what's the appeal with a glossy screen? If you happen to be wearing a light-colored shirt and are stuck in a pool of light that's all you're going to see reflected on your monitor. Sounds like more trouble than it's worth.
-Ron- |
|
Alan Carroll, Photographer
|
Clewiston | FL | United States | Posted: 11:27 AM on 05.16.06 |
->> Michael, the glossy screen is an option on the 15" too! I love it that it doesn't cost anything for the glossy option.
I noticed that the MacBook doens't have a stellar graphics setup. I wonder how much that'll affect its performance. Still... it is hard to beat the base price at $1099.
The $200 markup for a black case and an additional 20GB drive is pretty hard to swallow though. It'd probably show fingerprints :P
Alan |
|
Dirk Dewachter, Photographer
 |
Playa Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 11:59 AM on 05.18.06 |
| ->> The funny thing is that if you take the middle option you are 20GB short of the black model and the upgrade to the same 80gb hard drive is only $50.00 extra. I wonder what is different about the black casing because then the black upgrade would be $150.00 |
|
Sean Flanigan, Student/Intern
|
Federal Way | WA | United States | Posted: 12:06 PM on 05.18.06 |
| ->> How is the software running on these machines? I heard PS was running slow, whats the deal whith that? |
|
Adam Hemphill, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Willimantic | CT | US | Posted: 12:21 PM on 05.18.06 |
| ->> Because Apple is now using Intel chips, programs that were written for Motorola chips have to run under a built-in emulation program called Rosetta. It does not make applications slow, per se, but they will be slower than the same program in a native format (known as Universal). Adobe is expected to release a Universal version of Photoshop in early 2007 with version CS3. Until then, the current version can be run under OS X with Rosetta or natively in Windows XP Pro (via Apple's Boot Camp, whose functionality expected to be built-in to OS X 10.5). |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:52 PM on 05.18.06 |
->> Sean,
That question is on the minds of many Photoshop users.... and has been discussed here in conjunction with the MacBook Pro. Since the MB and MBP share very similar feature sets (other than the graphics processor), performance should be similar:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=20347
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19780
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19603
Apparently Rosetta likes it when you install more RAM, and since you want to use Photoshop, you might as well go for the full 2GB. Since PS will eventually be released as a Universal app, I'd rather get an Intel based Mac now and take advantage of the speed boost with other apps like Photo Mechanic and wait for the PS upgrade, rather than tie my decision to the unknown PS3 release date. In fact, I am waiting for my MB to arrive in the next few days...
There are also various Mac sites that have done Intel vs. PPC comparisons with various apps including PS. One is http://barefeats.com/pbcd.html |
|
Michael Hickey, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | United States | Posted: 2:20 PM on 05.18.06 |
| ->> Just at the local Apple store yesterday and they said the glossy screen was NOT available on the 17" Pro. I read it on a non-Apple page so I was probably mis-informed, sorry! |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 10:11 PM on 05.18.06 |
| ->> Michael: Glossy is an option for the 17" at the online Apple Store. |
|
Matt Petit, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Downey | CA | United States | Posted: 11:05 PM on 05.18.06 |
| ->> I was also thinking about getting a MacBook to take around with me while I shoot. Very affordable!! I was thinking the middle price one for $1299. Is AppleWorks important to get? What other features are a must to get? and will 512mb be too slow or should I upgrade to 1gb? |
|
David Meyer, Photographer
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:31 AM on 05.19.06 |
->> For those of you who want to run Final Cut Studio, the word is that you have to use use the Macbook Pros or the desktop units. The non-Pro versions don't have enough "oomph."
--Mark |
|
Christopher Park, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | United States | Posted: 4:09 AM on 05.19.06 |
->> Matt,
worth it at this point to upgrade all the way to 2gb of RAM. running apps like CS2 and image preview apps like photomechanic requre a lot of RAM if you really want to take advantage of the processor speed you are paying for. Also if you ever feel like running CS2, photomechanic, and a few other apps at the same time its well worth it to have the 2gigs |
|
Adam Hemphill, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Willimantic | CT | US | Posted: 8:23 AM on 05.19.06 |
| ->> You should definitely max out the RAM, however I would not purchase it from Apple as they consider the memory a user-replaceable part and it can be had for much cheaper than from them. |
|
Craig Melvin, Photographer
|
Olean | NY | US | Posted: 9:04 AM on 05.19.06 |
->> Go to Ramseeker.com, or MemoryX.
Those guys have the most competitive prices for memory.
I think I'm going buy my third backup as prices are coming down. The OLD G4 Powerbook 1.5mhz, 80 gb HD, 8X DVD burner, and 12" model. (my three others are all 12"s) Since my office is primarily airplanes, that machine rocks, and everything I use in it now is lighting fast. (8X burner is not available on the new ones yet)
Craig Melvin |
|
Baron Sekiya, Photographer
|
Kailua-Kona | HI | USA | Posted: 2:21 AM on 05.20.06 |
| ->> Just went to the Apple Store today to check on the new machines. I ran one of the 1080p HD QuickTime movie trailers on one of the new black MacBooks which have 64MB of shared graphics memory. It ran perfectly smooth full-screen. Damn! My 1.25GHz Powerbook G4 sputters and chokes on those HD movies. It's a little weird with the keyboard slightly sunken into the bottom frame but wouldn't be hard to get used to. A very nice looking machine. |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 4:04 AM on 05.20.06 |
->> Okay, I repeat, why would anyone want a highly reflective glossy screen on their laptop?
-R- |
|
Damon Moritz, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Woodbridge | Va. | USA | Posted: 8:06 AM on 05.20.06 |
->> Ron,
The answer is the same one that answers: "why would anyone want glossy photos?" |
|
Alan Carroll, Photographer
|
Clewiston | FL | United States | Posted: 12:57 PM on 05.20.06 |
->> Ron,
After going to the Mac store and actually looking at one, I agree. TOO MUCH REFLECTION with that screen.
I saw a glossy screen on a Sony Viao at my cellular dealer the other day and thought it was outstanding. Gee (thought I) it'd be cool if the MacBooks would have that. Not any more...
Alan |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 5:31 PM on 05.24.06 |
->> Just wanted to mention that I received the MacBook 2.0 today and so far I'm quite pleased with it. Transition of account settings & apps, etc. from my iBook went pretty smoothly with only a few minor quirks.
The MB seems very responsive with native apps. Tried a bit with PS CS2, and it seemed OK, though didn't do anything seriously heavy-duty... but did notice that processor intensive tasks like running Smart Sharpening on a 16x20" 300ppi file took a very, very long time. Fan speed & noise also ramps up during that filter application but dropped off immediately afterwards. Most everyday stuff like levels & curves seems OK. Thankfully Photo Mechanic 4.4.3 is very responsive. (BTW, I've upgraded to 2GB RAM & 120GB HDD)
I particularly like the feel of the entire unit. It's solid, especially compared against my 12" iBook G4, which I though was a bit "creaky" when moving it around. There are fewer joints in the MB housing, resulting in a rigid feel. Also a bit thinner. While not much on paper, it is noticeable. Keyboard is good too (for me). It's solid and somewhat quieter than the iBook, though definitely not silent. The click bar/pad is much softer & quieter. So far no major typing issues...
Swapping out the stock RAM & hard drive was straight forward with no issues.
I haven't tested the MB yet under continuously heavy load, but so far it's running very quiet and reasonably cool, though the few times it was under extended load, it did get quite hot underneath towards the back. The fan, when on full, is louder than the iBook G4.
While the added length is a bit of a pain, since I really liked the compactness of the 12" iBook, it's not too bad. I can live with it until Apple releases something smaller (someday, I hope). Sound quality from the speakers seems OK, though not as loud as the iBook.
These are just random thoughts that come to mind since I haven't had it long enough to give it a good workout. Let me know if there are any specific questions you might have.
I also posted some comments about the screen here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=20475 |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
|
Burlington | IA | United States | Posted: 1:25 AM on 05.25.06 |
->> For Final Cut Pro users:
Mark's statemtent: ->> For those of you who want to run Final Cut Studio, the word is that you have to use use the Macbook Pros or the desktop units. The non-Pro versions don't have enough "oomph."
That comment appears to be a bit premature. Creative Mac benchmarked the new MacBooks compared to the MacBook Pro 2.16Ghz and the dual PowerPC 2.0Ghz, and the MacBook hung in there or beat! the older Pro, and spanked the PowerPC in a few tests, and beat or matched it in all the others.
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717
Basically, the MacBooks are quite speedy, and certainly fast enough to run FCP. FYI, all the the systems had 2 gigs of ram. |
|
Will Duncan, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Johnson City | TN | USA | Posted: 4:54 AM on 05.30.06 |
->> I'm with Ron here. The glossy screen to me would look great when I'm at my desk. But get outside or a bad angle of light and its bad news. To make it worse, it ads a lot of contrast and pop to images/graphics, looks great on your screen, but if you tone for the web or do any new media content, your stuff isn’t going to look so hot unless you REALLY figure out how to tweak on that thing for what the rest of the world is going to see. It's hard enough making things look good on both Mac and PC gamma with the flat screen, hand me a glossy and I'd lose my mind editing graphics and images for large web projects.
The size appeals to me, fits in my bag, great to lug around, she still seems fast enough to handle a light-med workload. Max out the RAM for sure though. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
|
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 5:31 PM on 05.30.06 |
->> I've worked with the MacBook outside a bit and am not really having problems with the glossy screen. The sheer brightness of it vs. the iBook is a huge plus. The thing with the specular highlights is to look past them "into" the content of the screen. To me it's a compromise. With a matte screen in a very bright environment, I find there is too much sheen created by the matte finish, which I find much more difficult to look through than specular highlights on a glossy display.
I concur with Will that the color of the display may be a bit juiced. Here's where knowing how to work by the numbers in Photoshop's Info palette will help. Needless to say, it helps considerably to calibrate the display with something like the Gretag Eye One or similar.
But for me, it's about portability since I prefer to do most of my color work on a G5 & CRT anyway. I don't want an XP laptop and I don't want a huge 15" MBP. Therefore the only option is the MB and it has impressed me. I've shot a few baseball games since geting it - when running Photo Mechanic, it flies. I can right arrow through 8MP jpeg files at a rapid pace and the MB will usually keep up. The iBook could never do that... each image would require at least a second or few to generate the high res preview (when editing at high speed). I no longer feel there is an editing bottleneck when trying to rapidly browse through a game consisting of many hundreds of images. In fact, the MB might finally make editing less of a chore. Here's another surprise: running Handbrake (which is Universal) to rip DVDs is consistently faster on the MB (2.0 & 2GB RAM) compared to my G5 2.3 DP (4GB RAM), on average probably 30% faster. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:41 PM on 05.30.06 |
->> Ditto what Scott said. The MBs wil run FCP, but it not an "officially" supported app for the non-Pro machines.
---Mark |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|