http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
While it looks nice and the battery tech helps make it even slightly thinner... removing the kinds of things professional computer users expect is appauling. Does anyone know if sealing the bottom like that has removed any possibility to upgrade/replace the hard drive or ram???! Its like as if they took a step in the right direction with the 15" MBP and a step in the wrong direction with the 17"

It seems there are two kinds of expensive products, the ones rich people buy as toys and the ones professionals buy to work on. It seems apple is leaning twords the rich toy market with every step they take.]]>Jan 6th 2009 2:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
A new high price you mean. And no Quad Core CPUs?

Pfft.]]>Jan 6th 2009 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
#2 How does this thing justify a $2799+ tax price tag?
$2000 ok, but nearly $3000? That's madness... or its Spartaaaaaaaaa !


#3 I had hoped Apple wouldn't be stupid enough to put in yet another nonremovable battery. I'd NEVER Buy one of these because I'd never want to have to mail my laptop in for service. I'm gonna stick to being an HP-boy.

#4 8 Hours ?
that's not bad, but a Lenovo gets too that for FAR LESS THAN $2800 - I have an X60...very satisfied.
]]>Jan 6th 2009 4:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
2799$!!! No way. No f'ing way. That's 1/3 the way to a brand new Nissan Versa.]]>Jan 6th 2009 7:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 9:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/that's not bad, but a Lenovo gets too that for FAR LESS THAN $2800 - I have an X60...very satisfied"

Sooo you compare a highly powerful laptop with a 17 inch screen with a core duo powered laptop with moderate speed sporting intel graphics integrated and a 12 inch screen?

I have a x61s myself, in case you wonder.]]>Jan 7th 2009 2:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
No removable battery? Their excuse is the biggest bull i've heard yet. My HP and Sony laptop's battery is at the way back under the LCD monitor. So exactly why can't Apple just mold a rectangle so a battery can easily slide in?

If Apple's proved anything with its designs, nothing is impossible. They've pushed design limits (for the better) all the time. I still can't believe how thin the iPod Nano is.]]>Jan 9th 2009 1:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
Matte sucks? Are you kidding me? Yeah, the glass screen is puuurty, but if you happen to principally use your notebook anywhere other than in the basement, you'll quickly find how impossible it is to work on.]]>Jan 6th 2009 4:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
Quit making us PC users look stupid.]]>Jan 6th 2009 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
If this were any other computer manufacturer, a new 17-inch notebook
would not be news, but (as much as I hate to say it) with Apple, it
is, and there are three very distinct reasons why Engadget would
cover this.

1) It's not called "Engadget" for nothing. This is a GADGET blog. If
you read through the Macworld keynote liveblog, there were quite a
few jokes about how Phil took a while to get to the hardware portion
of the show. Yes, this site does, in fact, cover software from
time-to-time as well, but at the heart of the matter is the hardware
you use the software on.

2) Apple is in a unique position where, for better or for worse, they
only have a few computer models available. HP's website
currently lists three 17" notebooks, starting at $800. Lenovo has
ten distinct notebook models with 17" screens that are available from $1100.

Apple has just one. Apple is in a unique position where, for better or for worse, they
only have a few computer models available. So as long as Apple has even a minimal percentage of the
market, each model they ship has a huge market share comparative to
other hardware.

As such, the launch of almost any Apple product is a rather important
piece of news for the tech world, because Apple sells so damn many of
each model it produces. Even with it's smaller OS market share, when
you seperate just the hardware from the software, it's easier to
realize the magnitude of the launch of a new Apple product.

3) Engadget is part of Weblogs, Inc., a corporation owned by AOL.
It's their job to make money, and it's why there are banner ads on
this site. Now, I'm not going to comment on journalistic integrity,
or how it might affect what they cover, but the bottom line is: this
event is, as outlined by my first statement, what the website covers,
and as outlined in my second point, relevant to the tech world at
large. Engadget will cover it.

The thing is, the more YOU read the posts and then reply, the more
ads YOU view, and the more money the good people at AOL make. If the
good people at AOL make money off of a certain type of article, they
may not necessarily go to Engadget and say 'you HAVE to cover this',
but they certainly aren't going to prohibit covering it.

If you don't like it, I suggest you go live in the alternate universe where Jobs never came back to Apple and the company bottomed out in 1997.

Or, you can just, you know, skip all the articles you aren't
interested in, and stop feeding the monster you seem to dislike.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/20/tired-of-iphone-and-or-apple-news-on-engadget/]]>Jan 6th 2009 1:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
As for point #2, they can consolidate HP's three laptops into one article. And for Lenovo's, highlight the main points. That's what news companies do so people don't have to investigate on their own.

Engadget recommends the MacBook Air in the very same article that they mention every one of its major flaws. If it were a HP or Sony laptop, it would've been ripped apart. Look at the tone of the VAIO P articles, and it features a lot of what the Air is missing.
There isn't a word mentioned about Amazon and Rhapsody's cheaper mp3 offerings that have been around longer. If that were a Microsoft article, it would be written with the "about time" or "too little too late" attitudes.

And to prove my point, only in an Apple article would Engadget write "Of course, they don't have that sweet, gigantic battery inside, or that matte display option (until we torch Curpertino, of course... in love)." Hey, why don't you torch Microsoft in love with Windows 7? ]]>Jan 11th 2009 11:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
I'm gonna need citation for that statement. I always thought glossy filters made the display more pleasing in less "glary" places. I love gaming for hours on my glossy LCD as opposed to my matte screen as well. The color difference is virtually non-existent. In fact, I think the blacks are better with a glossy screen in moderate light. You don't have that matte black "ambient" color associated with LCDs. Matte screens are a shade lighter than black to me when the pixel is turned off because the light reflects against that matte surface and diffuses where glossy allows you to move the screen so virtually no light reflects back to you. In a totally dark room I don't think it would matter.

Honestly, I think it's personal preference. When you start spouting technical reasons, I need you to back up your post.]]>Jan 6th 2009 3:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
Basically anti-glare (matte) coatings scatter the light that is reflected from outside light sources. The problem is that it also scatters the light coming *through* the coating from your screen. So images are less sharp, and colors less accurate.

A good summary can be found here:

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml#anti-glare

If my explanation is unclear, the diagrams there should make it a lot easier to understand.

In either case, I would never choose anti-glare (matte) over anti-reflective (glossy) unless I knew I would be using the screen in an environment where there would be a high degree of distracting glare. the clarity, brightness, and brilliant color is just so much nicer, unless I *need* to prevent reflections.]]>Jan 6th 2009 4:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
Apologies, I didn't mean for it to seem like a technical point - I meant it as an opinion. I'm a photographer and have a Macbook with a glossy screen and a Cinema display which is matte; personally I have found that the glossy screens tend to make colours seem a lot bolder and more vibrant, whereas the matte screens seem to be just right (maybe the matte screen is actually dulling the colours, but I don't reckon so).]]>Jan 6th 2009 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 4:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/You must have missed the point of having multiple charged batteries that could be swapped out on the go. The external chargers are to charge the additional batteries while charging the one in the machine at the same time. That way you could have 3-4 extended life batteries that each last 3-6+ hours and swap them as they die. Then go back to a point with AC power and charge them all at once. I still say Apple is out of their F'n minds for trying to convince people that they don't need readily replaceable batteries in devices like laptops and cell phones.]]>Jan 6th 2009 5:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
Only if you think paying $1,200 for 4 GB of memory is cool.......]]>Jan 6th 2009 1:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=bwcwt66&c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&kc=features~precn_64bit]]>Jan 6th 2009 2:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/What are you talking about? You can find what memory is compatible with make on http://www.crucial.com/
I just recently purchased memory for my early 2008 2.5 White MacBook model.]]>Jan 6th 2009 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/Jan 6th 2009 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/apple-unveils-all-new-17-inch-macbook-pro/try some sarcasm classes..]]>Jan 6th 2009 4:10PM