Half-hearted Display Update Sours New Macbook Pro
Mac users and would-be switchers have been waiting months for a hardware refresh on Apple?s line of MacBook and MacBook Pro notebooks, and today that wait has come to an end with the announcement of new machines with faster processors, more memory, and better graphics cards. But Apple omitted one key upgrade on these systems: the screens.
Yes, all of the new MacBooks come with brighter, more efficient LED-backlit displays, but not a single one of the new Mac notebooks gets a bump up in screen resolution from this refresh, leaving the entry-level MacBook line at a stagnant and underwhelming 1,280x800 pixel resolution and the pricey 15-inch MacBook Pro at a maximum resolution of just 1,440x900. Frankly, those dimensions are just so 2006.
Right now, for $1,999, Dell is selling a 15-inch XPS M1530 gaming notebook with a 1,680x1,050 display and specs otherwise comparable to a $2,499 MacBook Pro with a $250 processor upgrade tacked on. Apple, however, only offers such a resolution on its 17-inch MacBook Pro--a gargantuan 6.8-pound machine that defies anyone to actually carry it around and boasts a price tag of $2,799. And while the 17-incher can be configured with an even sweeter 1,920x1,200 screen, the 15-inch MacBook Pro offers only a choice between glossy and anti-glare. What gives?
For people who like to keep more than one application window in view at a time, 1,440x900 is a paltry screen dimension. And 1,280x800 is practically unbearable. While I can certainly appreciate the reasons for sticking to a lower-res screen on the svelte MacBook Air, it seems downright absurd that neither of Apple?s two mainstream notebook lines offer display resolutions that a power user might call sufficient.
Don?t get me wrong: I?m not knocking the CPU and memory upgrades. They?re sure to give those notebooks a much-needed boost. But for a company that has built its image on its graphical interface, and commands the undying loyalty of graphic designers and creative types everywhere, Apple has really dropped the ball here. At the very least, it should be possible to add a 1,680x1,050 display to your 15-inch MacBook Pro for a couple hundred extra dollars. Sure, it would jack up the price of a fully loaded notebook to more than three grand, but that?s nothing new for Apple and many Mac die-hards would happily pay it.
At the end of the day, Apple?s failure to pack a decent screen resolution into these new notebooks will likely not hurt sales at all. After all, Steve Jobs and company have a long-standing tradition of denying basic features (such as floppy drives, media card slots, and more recently, optical drives) to their customers. What?s more, by withholding higher-res displays from these systems, Apple is leaving itself the option to announce an even more important hardware refresh at next year?s Macworld Expo. Personally, though, I hope they do it much sooner.
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
I am surprised you have a job. Your lack of the ability to read the complete specs is astounding. I am in the market for a laptop, and stumbled across this article. When i came to the part about Dell's M1530 I thought "wow, I should check this out for $500 less. I was amazed to see that you wanted to compare the mid range Macbook Pro with this laptop. A gaming laptop. That had HALF the VRAM of the Macbook Pro. Really? So you think that an unnecessarily high resolution with half the VRAM is better than a reasonable resolution with 2X(!!!!) the VRAM? Do you even use a computer for anything that might remotely tax the video card? I had to register for this site for the SOLE purpose of pointing out how ridiculous you are. EPIC FAIL!!
Oh and for the record, the Dell laptop should have been compared to the Lowend Macbook Pro since they would have the same video card. in that case 2.4Ghz, 2GB Ram (Vista Ultimate since that is what Dell recommends and is the only option that is comparable in features to OS 10.5) and and almost everything else the same, the price difference is Dell $1899, Macbook Pro $2049. A lot more similar than you decided to make it out to be. Lets not forget multitouch and the ability to run OS X and Windows.
Oh almost overlooked the fact that the Dell priced should be $1934 since you have to add 802.11n...moron
On my Lenovo at 1920x1200 I have to wear reading glasses. Once you figure out how to use Leopard's Spaces function you quickly realize why lotsa desktop via tiny pixels to see lotsa of Windows or Panes is well, a pain, and so yesterday. I am planning to plug in an external 27.5" 1920x1200 native HanSpree LCD for the Vista or Leopard laptop. I can support one of our 2560x1600 30" displays with the MacPro.
wrcturbo, I appreciate your passionate rebuttal and you do have a couple of points. I just went back to Dell's site and did a custom configure on that system with all of those specs accounted for, and here's what I came up with for $2,334:
2.6Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T7800
Windows Vista Ultimate
High Resolution glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1680x1050) & 2MP Camera
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
200GB 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive Free Fall Sensor
Slot Load DVD+/-RW
256MB NVIDIA? GeForce? 8600M GT
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Finger Print Reader XPS M1530
Notably, this system doesn't have a Penryn processor. But even with all of the available upgrades thrown in, it's still a couple hundred bucks cheaper than a comparable MacBook Pro. However, that's not really the point of my post. What I'm criticizing is Apple's failure to offer a 1,680x1,050 display option--even at a mark-up--which is a legitimate shortcoming that ought to be addressed in the next refresh.
Added Note:
Incidentally, I actually went to the Apple Store yesterday and bought one of the new $2,499 MBPs, because--like a lot of people--I've been waiting a long time to replace my old Mac notebook. And while I'm initially impressed by its overall performance, I stand by my demand for a higher-resolution display.
Note to neuronetix: I'm really glad to see Apple include Spaces in Leopard. I've been using workspaces in Linux for years, and it's a great way to keep large numbers of apps running without cluttering your screen. I hope Apple eventually adds thumbnails of each space to the Dock icon, which would make it easier to remember which space you left a particular app in without interrupting your workflow. This feature has long been a part of the Linux experience, and it would be great to see Apple refine its take on it.
Robert,
I just wanted to point out that in addition to a lack of Penryn, the Dell you had built in your example is LCD, which both environmentally and in terms of battery life is less preferable.
I have a G4 Powerbook that is giving me grief, so I'm probably on the road to upgrade now, but I agree that Apple needs to at least OFFER the display upgrade.
Notably, that system does not have Penryn, or an LED display, or a 512MB Graphics card, or Multitouch. The Dell does have a 2MP (from what I have admittedly only read, the iSight is 1.3MP), and as you have pointed out a larger resolution. I respect your right as a person to have your own opinion, however as a journalist I think that you are making much ado about nothing. I am not denying that Apple should increase the screen resolution. However to say that the lack of a screen resolution bump "spoils" the new Macbook Pros is absurd. And the use of the Dell laptop as an example seems ridiculous as well. THE MACBOOK PRO HAS 2X THE GRAPHICS MEMORY! Now, to ME, I would rather take the laptop with the more graphics memory then the one that seemed to be playing the numbers game, by cramming a higher resolution into what is essentially half the video card. Your article comes across (to someone who is aware of the numbers) as a use of rhetoric to a conversation piece into big news.
Outside of the dell sideshow, the point is it would be nice to have a better screen because the technology is out there and this is apple's top of the line notebook. Good point,
However, looking at the title again, I would spend more time talking about the real life difference for users that is program specific. That would help us decide if we think it would sour it for us