Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This is Archive 1, which cover discussions which began in 2006.

Microsoft Windows

Will the MacBook dual-boot Windows? That would make an interesting subsection once known. (Since Microsoft owns VirtualPC, I would imagine they would spend resources to develop compatible Apple-hardware drivers for Windows. As a byproduct, this should also finally mean a native driver for the iSight.)

Engadget's blurb when it first showed the Macbook pro (sigh the name) said "And it runs Windows". I dont know how accurate that statement is, but once these are in the wild, I can't imagine that it will be very long before people find a way to completely overwrite the OSX install with a windows one, but it might take time for a bootloader to be made that will handle OSX and windows (and *nix, of course). I think the main question is whether this is officially condoned, supported, or what. I guess we will see in Febuary, barring some new release of information. 63.247.4.108 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

just found this in the Apple Intel transition article: "Apple has already indicated they do not intend to take steps to prevent other operating systems being deployed on their new machines." gentlemen, start your engines.

The MacBook Pro will not boot Windows XP but Apple has mentionned it will be Vista Compatible. This has nothing to do with Apple's market strategy in particular, but more with the fact that XP is not EFI compatible, but Vista will be. On the note of market strategy, Apple has learned from the Mac Clone days that if they are going to make money in this market, it's going to be by selling hardware. While it's true the the mac's appeal is due to not only its high-end hardware, but also its very smooth, stable and efficient OS (in fact I personally don't see why anyone would want to run windows other than to game... oh), Apple wants to sell hardware and surely opening the platform up to the installation of other OSes will do nothing more but rake in the cash. Sure, having people run windows may mean less people are going to buy $79 little gems like iLife or iWork, if it means more people are buying $2000-$3000 systems, I'm quite certain they won't blink twice. Edward Grefenstette 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that other laptops using the Core Duos that came out this week were utilizing EFI with Windows XP. Am I mistaken? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not according to this source (Engadget). This is also the source for my first statement (see above). Edward Grefenstette 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This article suggests that XP compatibility may be achieved in the near future. I've edited the Apple Intel Transition article to incorporate both points.

XP is EFI compatible only insofar as systems use a 'Compatibility Support Module' which basically makes an EFI system pretend it's using old-fashioned BIOS. So it's not that XP is EFI compatible, but rather the other way around... Certain EFI systems are XP compatible. Apple chose not to include this CSM, so the MacBook Pro isn't XP compatible. Ehurtley 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that everything above is out of date as of last week when Apple released Boot Camp, allowing the MacBook Pro (along with the Intel-powered iMac and mini) to boot Windows XP. -- Hawaiian717 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Extensible Firmware Interface

The article page has been updated to reflect the fact that Apple has chosen to utilize Intel's EFI as their bootstrap software, as opposed to Open Firmware previously deployed. I think readers would like to know whether this means Apple utilizes Trusted computing to lock-in their x86 port of Mac OS X.

Does the MacBook / EFI support Firewire-boot and Target-Disk-Mode?

Regarding dual-boot with Windows, I know I would much rather prefer to install Windows on one my external Firewire drives and have the option to boot from it. I wouldn't want to consume my prescious limited internal hard drive space on a second partition+install, and it could then also double as a data drive for copying large files to other Windows computers.

Yes, it does. [1] Mushroom 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardware questions

Why no Firewire 800? It is backwards-compatible with Firewire 400.

This is a serious issue for some people who wish to have a laptop yet use FireWire 800 devices. I have several external hard drives that are FW800 and won't be upgrading until this is resolved. --LoganCale 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No S-Video because obviously HDTV is ubiquitous and everyone has a DVI-HDMI adapter? Or because everyone already has a Video iPod for that?

because a DVI-to-S-Video adapter exists.[2]

The DVI-to-S-Video adapter does not list the MacBook Pro as supported. And the MacBook Pro 'What's Inside' page (formerly called 'Tech Specs',) does *NOT* list TV Out. Not even through an adapter. (Other models do list TV Out when through an adapter, compare the iMac page, which lists "S-video, and composite video connections via adapter".) This heavily implies, to me, that the MacBook Pro does *NOT* support TV Out. Ehurtley 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be. The 'MacBook Pro Technology Overview January 2006' [3] answers a lot of my questions. Page 14 states that it does have dual-channel memory, page 17 states that it does, indeed, support TV Out through a DVI adaptor. Now if only it mentioned Dual-Layer burning.... Ehurtley 08:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just spoke to one of the MacBook support people on the MacWorld floor. He says a S-video/composite out adaptor will be available when the MacBooks ship. The spec sheet says "DVI to VGA adapter included (other adapters sold separately)" which supports what he says. --agr 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Someday I wish someone could explain why Apple has brought IR back from the dead instead of simply making the Apple Remote use Bluetooth.

That used to really piss me off as well (mostly because if it used bluetooth I could use it with my existing Powerbook) but apparently it's due to battery life. If they made the remote use bluetooth you'd have to change the battery in it all the time, whereas an IR one lasts for ages. 88.105.188.157 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Still a 2GB RAM ceiling? Am I the only person who keeps more than 20-30 web browser windows open at a stretch?

Do 2GB SO-DIMMs exist on the market?

20-30 browser windows could never get near 2 gigs of physical memory being reserved, especially since all the windows would still be running off the same process. The only people who benefit from that much ram are involved in media creation and editing.63.247.4.108 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My top says otherwise: Camino TIME=139hrs RSIZE=290M VSIZE=1.04G, Safari TIME=53hrs RSIZE=304M VSIZE=1.11G, iChat TIME=2hrs RSIZE=25.4M VSIZE=264M; Just browsing and IM are eating up at least 600MB of real RAM and addressing well over 2GB of total "memory" (i.e. disk swapping). Now imagine if I also wanted to run Photoshop and Keynote all at the same time in order to prepare a presentation. 71.246.25.169 00:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any 2GB SO-DIMMs yet, but the hardware architecture should support 4GB of RAM. [4] Ehurtley 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

One more 'complaint': The What's Inside page doesn't show that the SuperDrive is Dual Layer. It shows 'Double Layer' read, but not write. That makes three major 'downgrades' from the PowerBook. (FW800, TV Out, and Dual Layer burning.) Ehurtley 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked about dual layer. To get the smaller form factor (one inch thick) they went to a thinner drive that does not support dual layer write at this time. (I got the impression they hope that restriction will go away in future models). I've updated the article's specs. They had no answer on FireWire 800 except to say it isn't supported. TV out, as I mentioned above, is there with an extra cost adaptor.--agr 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A note that the 17" model includes both the Firewire 800 and double-layer DVD write features complained about here (I'll check that the article agrees). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Branding

Who came up with such a bad name? --LoganCale 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

People have realized for some time that the iBook and PowerBook brands are redundant. iBooks offer only slightly lower prices and conspicuously missing features next to the PowerBooks. I expect that the naming results from unifying these model lines. Also they said in the Keynote that they wanted "Mac" in all of the computer names. PowerMac, Mac Mini, iMac, etc...

So you think the iBook replacement will 'MacBook'? Does make more sense than the previous arrangement. 82.2.116.90 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Jobs also indicated they wanted to drop the word "Power", which refers to PowerPC--agr 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't... PowerBooks were called PowerBooks long before the PowerPC was around. The Power Mac, however, was named for its CPU, and admittedly this has become muddled in people's minds, justifying the change. -- grm_wnr Esc 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be fair to say that although the name "powerbook" did not originally reffer to powerpc, it has come to mean that. a bacronim of sorts.

Pictures

Why do we need a picture of it closed as well as open? --huwr 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

because the thinness of Apple laptops primarily define their character?

The thinness, while a feature, is not demonstrated clearly by the image. --huwr 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tech specs

"Battery: 85 watt lithium polymer battery" makes little sense. The apple tech specs pages says 60 Watt Hour. The power adapter is rated at 85 Watt. If the battery can charge at 85 Watts, then it will charge in less than 50 mins. Hopefully the laptop runs at far less than 85 Watts, otherwise it will eat the pattery in the same amount of time.

Number of bits

The CPU is clearly capable of running in 64-bit mode (albeit somewhat anaemically), but I can find no reliable reference stating whether the MacBook Pros will run the CPU in 32-bit mode or in 64-bit mode. Obviously, the biggest advantage of 64-bit mode is when you have more than 2 to 4 gigs of RAM, but there are other advantages as well. I strongly suspect the MacBook Pro runs in 64-bit mode as it makes no sense to me for Apple to take a step backwards on this. But I don't know for sure. Could someone find out and add the information to the article? Thanks. --Yamla 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on what is available at [5], the current generation of Intel Apple computers are 32-bit only. I'm not sure this is all that reliable... I find it hard to imagine that Apple will force two major platform changes in as many years but I suppose it is possible. Anyone got any better sources? --Yamla 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The only one to have `stepped backwards' would be the iMac that definitely did have a 64-bit CPU when it had a G5. The PowerBook never had a 64-bit CPU in it. --huwr 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Powerbook/MacBook hardware doesn't support more than 2GB of RAM, so it wouldn't hit that memory ceiling anyway. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Intel Core Duo processor is, indeed, only 32-bit [6]. That gives it a 4 GB RAM ceiling [7]. However, there shouldn't be a major 'shift' when moving to x86-64, as it should be very similar to the PowerPC 32 to 64-bit transition. (i.e. x86-64 is just an 'extension' to the existing x86 platform.) Heck, the developer transition machines used a 64-bit Pentium 4 [8]. Intel's next major chip family (Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest) will be 64-bit across the board, including mobile. This new family is expected to be released toward the end of this year (2006,) and will likely be the processor inside the replacement for the Power Mac (MacMac Pro?  :-p). Ehurtley 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

New article

See Talk:Apple-Intel architecture#New article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

PowerBooks?

The article currently says that "Apple will continue to sell PowerBooks which remain in its inventory, along with the now discontinued line of iMac G5 desktops." Apple hasn't said that they are discontinuing the PPC equivalents. For example, someone wanting a 'Pro' laptop with a bigger screen, or smaller screen, would still have to get a PowerBook. Removed the comment. (Likely they're keeping them around for a while just like when they switched the Power Mac to G5, and kept the PMac G4 around for a little while, not just 'selling remaining inventory'.) Ehurtley 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

802.11a/b/g

Apple's site doesn't mention this but apparently all Intel Macs support 802.11a. Sources:

• MacNN
• AppleInsider
• World of Apple

Mushroom 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Those sources do not seem to say where they get that knowledge from. Apple is denying 802.11a support, which means they probably haven't built it into AirPort cards. Intel Macs may still support it through third-party wireless cards. The new Macs may be capable of supporting 802.11a, but it is not an official advertised feature and should not be listed on the specifications. --huwr 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Those sites say that Intel Macs support it natively, and I think it's true. MacNN is not a rumor site and it usually has correct information. But that's just my personal opinion. Since it's not official yet, I will remove it. When MacBooks ship we'll know more about this. Mushroom 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Net News says that Apple has probably switched from Broadcom to Atheros chips. If this was true, they would support 802.11a. But this is still not official, let's wait for a confirmation. Mushroom 09:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's confirmed (by examining the drivers extention for the wireless card) that the MacBook Pro uses the Atheros 5424 PCI Express wireless card. This cards supports a/b/g. However, the existing Airport configuration as well as Internet Connect does not allow 802.11a to be configured.

MacBook forward

Suggest MacBook no longer forward to this page, they are different products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.195.33 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing us to the page selling the MacBook then? AlistairMcMillan 23:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone else changed the MacBook article so that it contains the speculative info. Don't worry, I made sure the future products template was there. :) -- Hawaiian717 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The MacBook is going to be the replacement for Apple's current line of iBooks...I personally don't think MacBook should redirect to MacBook Pro, and I'm not seeing any future products boilerplate or template anywhere. zack 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

New incidents of MagSafe failing?

Hrm, all of the major Macintosh news and rumor sites have nothing about this new 'spate' of MagSafe failures, and the two 'new' cases linked to here are both in forums where the post detailing the 'new' incidents is a brand-new poster. One offers no photographic proof, the other only provides links to photos that are offline. Sorry, but this looks like unverified 'original research' to me. Anyone else support its removal? Ehurtley 22:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of no legitimate MagSafe failure reports sent to Apple. I too support it's removal. zack 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have removed all reference to it in accordance with WP:BOLD. I think it may be worth mentioning on some small note but should not be taken seriously. If anyone objects please do so below. --mboverload 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Battery life

How many hours is the battery life for the MacBook Pro 15/17 inch? McDonaldsGuy 05:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

4.5 hours for the 15", 5.5 hours for the 17". — Wackymacs 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Depending on use, of course. Notebookreview shows the 15 inch MacBook Pro gets about three hours which is probably closer to what an average user will experience than "up to 4.5 hours" as Apple marketing claims. The 15" MacBook comes with a 60-watt-hour battery while the 17" comes with a 68-watt-hour. This is fairly standard for a 6-cell battery. By comparison, many Wintel dual-core laptops come with an 8 or 9 cell battery that, everything else being equal, would get 30 - 50% more life. But Apple underclocks the graphics cards in the MacBook Pros. The end result is that the MacBook Pro gets slightly more battery life than a comparable Wintel dual core if that Wintel laptop has a 6-cell battery, but substantially less battery life than a Wintel with a larger battery (as should be expected). The 4.5 and 5.5 hours really have little likelihood in average use and should be taken with a large pinch of salt. --Yamla 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that they officially call it 4.5. Usually they estimate higher-than-possible by half an hour or so, yet I can reach 5 hours regularly, and have coaxed 5.5 out of my 15" MBP. But, I do run with wireless off most of the time when on battery, and frequently put my backlight on minimum brightness. Ehurtley 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucky you! I got exactly 3 hours (and still getting 3 hours after a month) - but I have both Bluetooth and Wireless on - and run close to full-brightness... (Interestingly, Arstechnica got 3 hours too...) So I guess the 4.5 hours sound about right if people run it somewhere inbetween. --mintchocicecream 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mixed Specifications

There are two headers in the article ("MacBook Pro 15.4" (January 2006)" and "MacBook Pro 17" (April 2006)") apparently intended to give an overview and specifications of each specific model. However, most of the 17" details are intersperced within the 15.4" section.

Pedantically, I think it would make sense to either split up the text so that it actually follows the atricle's apparent outline, or else re-structure the outline so that it better reflects the orginatition of the article's text.24.222.2.222 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

vs MacBook

There should be a comparison (hardware, performance, specs) of MacBook Pro and MacBook. From the POV of someone who hasn't always followed Apple, I'm not sure what the difference is. --AlanH 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The main difference apart from the smaller (glossy) screens is the lack of a decent graphics card. The MacBooks are unsuitable for gaming because of their lack of graphics capabilities, for example. Of course, that's not what they are designed for. There are other differences, including the keyboard of course. --Yamla 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Industrial design

Bezel design flaw? The MBP screen bezel with the iSight is lopsided and top heavy. An aesthetic quibble. Jonathan Ive can't be proud of that. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.102.50 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 June 2006

Do you have a source to back up this claim? See WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I find that the top bezel aesthetically mirrors the strip above the keyboard and speakers on the flat section of the computer, but personal preferences shouldn't come into this - if we find someone with some credibility making such a comment, we can discuss it with sources, but otherwise ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thermal Issues

Recently, some tests have challenged this explanation of heat issues, showing a minimal (one or two degrees F) drop in temperature when thermal grease was re-applied. - There are clear references for how removing thermal paste makes a difference, but no reference for this assertion. -- IndigoMM 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't taken mine apart yet to see if there is an excessive amount of thermal paste, but my new Macbook Pro (2.16GHz/1GB/120GB) runs extremely hot. It's painful to use on a lap, it has to be used on a desk... Thewalrus 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Boot Camp and Hardware issues with Keyboard

While searching for a way to get proper keyboard functionality in XP, I found this piece of windows software: http://www.olofsson.info/ It was frustrating not being able to use the home, end, pageup and pagedown keys in windows. Should there be a Boot Camp/XP issues area for the article page? I know wikipedia is not a howto or a tech support site, but a few short links in a single paragraph might be very helpful for some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewalrus (talk • contribs)

Better in a Boot Camp article, perhaps? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Would it ok to add a Triva section to the main article? I've noticed a few MBPs cropping up on TV since they launched and it would be quite cool if we could document it. S.Skinner 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but since Apple hardware appears regularly on television/films, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Firstly I'm not sure how we'd make it verifiable, secondly it would very quickly become a long unwieldy list. See also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. AlistairMcMillan 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather someone compile such a list outside Wikipedia. I'm not saying there's absolutely no value to it if you like Mac-trivia, but I don't think Wikipedia is really the place. For one thing, it's skating closer to original research than I'm happy with. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia lists don't really belong here on an encyclopedia, they're unprofessional and open the article up to too many single edits by people adding more and more film names where they saw a Mac. — Wackymacs 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Warranty Voiding Claims

Opening a computer and replacing the hard drive must not void the warranty in some jurisdictions including Australia and the United States.

See also the US Federal Trade Commission's Information on warranties. (Scroll down to "Tie-In Sales")

From the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act source:

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

The warranty may only be voided on parts that the manufacturer can prove were damaged as a result of the outside repair. That merely opening the case can legally void a warranty is a common misconception.

-- wac(talk contrib) 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Core 2 Duo

Wouldn't it be relevant to mention the upcoming processor upgrades even though they have yet to be announced? With all the talk about Merom, I think it is more than applicable.

-- 69.137.70.170

Can someone with time please post the new spec's for the updated MBP, thanks.

Hero of the Apple Union

Brazilian MBP survives 7.65mm pistol shot, saves owner's life during attempted robbery: http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/402417027_d9240e8afe.jpg

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5