Apple's 4th Intel-powered Mac - a 17in laptop at £2K

[Bob Crabtree]

Apple is set to introduce its fourth Intel-power Mac - a two-grand 17in laptop. The MacBook Pro has a 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo CPU and is claimed to be up to five times faster than its G4-powered predecessor.

Despite having an aluminium case and being just one inch (254mm) high, the MacBook Pro - due next week - is something of a heavyweight, tipping the scales at 6.8lb (3.1kg). Even so, and despite the £1,999 price-tag, it's very likely to appeal to serious road-warriors, not least because they'll be able to dual boot between Mac OS X and Windows XP, thanks to Apple's recent introduction of Boot Camp Public Beta. Check out our review of that utility running on the first-generation, Intel-powered 15in MacBook Pro.

More in this HEXUS.headline.

[awm]

I'm a little more concerned about a light wallet than a heavy laptop. It seems Apple is trying to see how expensive they can make laptops as expensive as they can. I really like my Powerbook and OS X, but it seems like Apple is now trying to take every penny they can from their users. Just because they have a monopoly on OS X computers doesn't mean that they should charge such riddiculous prices. I think they need to show some self restraint if they want to gain market share, and not try to price as many people out as possible. Of course there are lower end models, but Apple doesn't have any very affordable laptops.

[Bob Crabtree]

The info contained in my original comment (included below) is inaccurate.

So, please ignore! Or, rather, please read it in the light of what others say below (including myself in my next substantive comment).

Bob

=================

One thing the original story perhaps failed to make clear is that Apple really is aiming this machine at people who want plenty of power.

That being so, I've done a pricing comparison with what I reckon is the nearest Dell model (not one, I should add, that is arrived at from a special deal of any kind) and have included an update at the bottom of the original piece.

My calcs show that - like for like - Apple is over £300 cheaper, though as you'll see if you check out the update, the comparison is NOT absolutely direct in a number of areas, so you may wish to take some potshots about that here.



Bob

=========

[kempez]

Wouold this not be a closer spec?

[loki]

Yeah, i would have though the inspiron 9400 or the xps m1710 woul dhave been a closer comparison than the precision m90 which is a business laptop designed for high end CAD use and such. The quadro graphics chip itself is something stupid like 600 quid.

[Tobeman]

bsodmike is likely to have his on pre-order

[Gordy]

Surprised the dell is so much more!

And that the 15in one of the same spec if £60 more too!

[kempez]

Bugger I watermarked the post above by mistake

take another look at it with the exact same (I think) spec as the Mac but only £1600ish

[Bob Crabtree]

Thanks for the pricing comments - I've now reworked the article.

I've removed the detailed references to Dell but have posted at the bottom of this comment what I removed - and why - so that other people's comments here don't look daft or out of place.

Oh, but there are a few discrepancies between Dell and Apple in the example that Kempez posted above - some that favour Dell and others that favour Apple.

I've listed below those I've noticed but would be delighted if people pointed out any others, irrespective of whose product they favour:

* Delivery - which, I believe, is an extra on the Dell (£29.38 inc VAT) but free on the Apple
* Bluetooth - not included in the Dell's price and not offered as an extra (of course, you could go buy a USB Bluetooth adaptor and connect that)
* RAM - the Dell's 1GB comes as two 512MB sticks, not one 1GB (a single 1GB stick makes later upgrading more flexible and is more expensive - Apple cuts the price by £70 if you opt for two 512MB sticks, others can say if that's a fair reflection of market differences)
* Graphics - there are different makes/models in Dell and Apple. I'll leave others to say which is better but the Dell has 512MB RAM, the Apple 256MB
* Display - the Dell is 1920x1200, the Apple is 1680 by 1050 - so I'd assume that the Dell would be better able to handle 1080 HD footage which, if memory serves, is 1920x1080.
* The Dell comes with a pair of speakers normally priced at just under £50
* The Dell has a Vista-capable logo (which largely refers to the graphics card it carries being Vista-capable, I think; is the ATI card also Vista capable?)

==============
For the record, this is what I removed from the original news story:

Update April 25, 17:20
An interesting comparison can be made between Apple's latest offering and the nearest equivalent from Dell, which, by our reckoning (and by a little customisation of the options) is this one.

You'll need to do some further customisation yourself (all our changes weren't stored) - for processor speed (increase to 2.16GHz), graphics card RAM (reduce to 256MB), DVD burner (choose that instead of a CD-RW/DVD-ROM combi), Bluetooth (add); and accidental-damage cover (remove).

Do that, and you'll arrive at a price of £2,642.58 including VAT and shipping (shipping is free from the Apple Store). That's over £600 more than the Apple!

The main significant differences you'll see remaining are:

* Hard disk size - the largest Dell offers is 100MB vs Apple's 120GB as standard
* Hard disk speed - Dell does offer 7,200rpm, though you should select 5,400rpm for close pricing parity
* Graphics card - the Dell has an NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M, rather than an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600.
* Apple RAM comes as one stick, rather than two as with the Dell, and you could save £70 with Apple if you opted for two.
* Dell's warranty is three-years' international on-site (next business day), whereas Apple's is one year return-to-retailer - something equivalent to Dell's offering costs £279.

So, if the warranty is taken into consideration, too, the headline difference in price is still over £300 (though that, of course, takes no account of the difference in cost of the two brands of graphics card or the slightly larger Apple HDD).

===============
Just so there is no mistake, let me point out that the above double-indented text is wrong. That's why it was removed from the news story. It is here merely as a matter of record and so the good people who commented about the original Dell comparison don't look daft!

Bob

[wiked_wizz]

i hate to admit but all pc manufacturers should learn something from apple. they have done a brilliant job with their macbook pro laptop. i have tried their 15" model and i have not found any laptop compare to this.

[kempez]

Hi Bob

Yeah all the point you make are fair though if you ring up Dell and hassle them then I'm pretty sure you could easily get some extra's thrown in as thats what they're like. Apple do kinda the same but but not to the same extent and with that amount of play in their prices. Anyhoo - yes the Apple is nice but it still looks overpriced when compared to a Dell with pretty damn close specs.

I will also say that the GPU in the Dell far outperforms the Apple, especially at that res. Perhaps with the execption of IQ level

[Gordy]

* Display - the Dell is 1920x1200, the Apple is 1440x900 - so I'd assume that the Dell would be better able to handle 1080 HD footage which, if memory serves, is 1920x1080.

17in res isnt 1440x900 thats the 15in

[Stoo]

17in res isnt 1440x900 thats the 15in

Indeedy:

# 17-inch MacBook Pro

* 17-inch (diagonal) TFT display, support for millions of colours
* Supported resolutions: 1680 by 1050 (native), 1280 by 800, 1152 by 720, 1024 by 640 and 800 by 500 at 16:10 aspect ratio; 1280 by 1024 at 5:4 aspect ratio; 1280 by 1024 at 5:4 aspect ratio stretched; 1024 by 768, 800 by 600 and 640 by 480 at 4:3 aspect ratio; 1024 by 768, 800 by 600 and 640 by 480 at 4:3 aspect ratio stretched; 720 by 480 at 3:2 aspect ratio; 720 by 480 at 3:2 aspect ratio stretched

Still less though

[Bob Crabtree]

17in res isnt 1440x900 thats the 15in

Gordy,

Thanks - changed it to read, "1680 by 1050". Same comment relating to HD 1080 still applies, though, I think, with the Dell being better placed.

All that said, I run a 19in LCD at 1280x1024 and I'm not sure I'd be very comfortable with normal office work or web browsing using 1440x900 on a 17in, never mind 1680x1050 or 1920x1080!

Can someone who's actually tried such resolutions on 17in LCDs tell me if they are actually usable?

Bob

[Gordy]

I've only used 1440x900 and compared to the 1600x1200 on my pc its very usuable.

[Bob Crabtree]

Gordy,

Thanks.

Anyone able to comment about 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 on a 17in screen?