..if they will run as HOT as the current ones?
No venting, total lack of features and hard drives the same size as the original Mac 128k.
So glad it's a work's machine!!
Apple parked its most diehard fans on the horns of a dilemma this afternoon, as it launched a range of new Macbook Pros, just a week before it unveils the latest iPad. The updated 13-inch MacBook Pros are kitted out with Core i5 or Core i7 dual-core Intel chips running at up to 2.7GHz. They feature Intel HD Graphics 3000. The …
I owed a Mac 128k. It had a 400 kB floppy drive and didn't have a hard drive. The Fat Mac (Mac 512k) also didn't have a hard drive. And neither did the Mac Plus. The first classic-form-factor Mac to ship with a hard drive was the Mac SE, and some SEs had either one or two floppies (by that time 800 kB floppies) instead of the hard drive. Furthermore, that drive was a 20MB drive (40MB for more cash.)
it was possible to _add_ a hard drive to a Mac Plus, either internally or externally; the internal hard drives were added by doing a hack, the external ones by SCSI. It was even possible to use the same hack to put an internal drive into a Fat Mac. (No external drive, as no SCSI) It was _NOT_ possible to use that hack on a Mac 128. Couldn't be done. In theory an external drive _might_ have been attached to either the Mac 128 or the Fat Mac by using the port for the external floppy drive, but no such drives were ever produced.
Now, if you happen to have an original Mac 128 which has a factory-installed hard drive, by all means trot it out and show us.
The original 128K Mac doesn't support Hard Drives except over serial ports, and certainly doesn't ship with them as a standard feature (a second 400k floppy is an extra cost option). The first Mac with half way decent hard drive support is the 512K, which supports a 20MB HD connected via the external floppy port.
"While the top-level resolution will work when making calls between new MacBook Pros, you'll have to settle for the standard res if you're calling those saddoes with other Macs"
I read that sentence a few times and I still don't get it.
Is the screen resolution on the older Macs not sufficient to render the new "hi-res" camera images?
Why would the likes of Skype or any other comms program not be able to handle it?
The new 13 inch Macbook Pro only has a 1280x800 screen, while the 13 inch Macbook Air has 1440x900, so the supposed "Pro" machine is clearly inferior. That's funny.
Of course, the 13 inch Macbook Pro is really the same machine as the Macbook but in an aluminium case instead of plastic, or at least it will be when the Macbook gets the same Sandy Bridge update. There is usually a delay of a month or two. The 15 and 17 inch Pros are genuinely high spec machines, but the 13 is more for people who want to sit in Starbucks with a machine that looks nice while they browse the web and run office apps and relatively lightweight stuff. Nothing wrong with that, but notwithstanding the "Pro" in the name, its closer to being in the same family as the Macbook rather than the other Macbook Pros.
That said, once Apple gets some LV and ULV Sandy Bridge chips from Intel and upgrades the Macbook Air, I can't see much reason to buy the 13 inch Pro. At that point the Air will be superior in just about every way, and not much more expensive.
they are using more rigorous standards now in estimating run time. The new basis is explicitly drawn from video over WiFi, perhaps previously it was a combination of web surfing and video or whatever. Guess they maybe had a few complaints, anyway it will be interesting to see the maximum up times on the new models.
"The new basis is explicitly drawn from video over WiFi"
The new Sandy Bridge chip has on-die video decoding (H.264 among others), allowing the CPU to effectively idle ~3% while playing high-def content. The power draw would be mostly all from the WiFi as even the HDD wouldn't have to spin up if it was streaming the content. With that in mind, 7 hours is still pretty decent considering how horrid WiFi is to battery life. Best way to get more life out of your laptop? Disable WiFi when not in use and cut the screen to 75% brightness or so. (does the new battery life measurement run vid at full 100% brightness one wonders...)
Anyway, my Core2-based MBP only pulls 2.5hrs with WiFi and actual use (screen at 85% or so), so I don't know what magic sauce you guys are using.
Anyone who spells losers that badly never won a spelling bee or an argument. ;)
Why Paris? Yet again Apple make a pretty thing with brainless attractions and a pricetag nobody could possibly justify with any remotely sane or economic reasoning. The chavs will drool at the unattainable waste of space/time while the rich play with it.
Meanwhile the fondleslab fans froth and thrash in anticipation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021