I don't think the laptop versions of the Core i* have 3 memory channels (neither do the Socket-1155/1156 desktop versions), so 3x4GB of RAM would be a strange/suboptimal configuration. There probably isn't enough physical space in a 13" laptop for more than 2 modules anyway (unless you sacrifice battery or optical drive space). Even soldering them to the motherboard wouldn't save much space - I think all current 4GB modules use 16 DRAM chips.
The move from Core2Duo to Core i* alone should bag you a substantial improvement in processing power, at least; the lack of a quad-core model is presumably a battery life and cooling system trade-off.
I have no idea why they're still so popular. I can only assume people don't think about it rationally. I don't know anyone who drags DVDs around with them, so why drag around the drive?
Frankly, I haven't needed an optical drive in a laptop since booting from USB drives became practical a few years ago. (happy MacBook Air user here)
It'll be interesting to see if Apple fleshes out its Cinema display into a combined docking station and screen using the Thunderbolt port's potential. Add a DVD drive, HDD for Time Machine, USB/Firewire controllers, ExpressCard slot, whatever, using the PCIe channel in the Thunderbolt.
So, honest question, would you not trade the internal CD-Rom for better battery life, more ram, lighter weight or some other tangible advantage?
The only situation where I could imagine an external CD-Rom to get in the way would be for watching DVDs on the go. But afaik even for that most people copy the movie to the harddrive beforehand - to prevent the drive from sucking the battery dry while watching.
Instead of the above trade off, I think I'd buy two machines if needed.
I see the MBP as a laptop to use plugged in a socket and with a lan cable at home, work, a client's place or a library, and only need decent portability and battery life. For all other uses I'd prefer the ipad or the Air(wish I get the $$ for it).
Last night, to rip a DVD from Netflix. Before that, I didn't use it often, to be fair, but I've still used it to install Office, to install OS X, and to burn a DVD with the complete audio _Ulysses_ on it.
Do I use it as often as I did, say, 10 years ago? No, but I can imagine why Apple would leave it.
Interesting, I didn't realise the mobile versions don't even support multiple memory modules per channel. (which would allow for 4 modules like on many desktop systems, including the iMacs)
Wasn't there a problem with some of the core processors? I don't remember which ones, but I'd check very carefully.
Also worth checking out is what scale they are made at, I remember some of the core i processors were only being made at the higher nanometers scale (e.g. older less heat efficient technology).
It would be ironic if the Core i5 four core model was more battery efficient and produced less heat than the core i5 two core models...
Edit: no, I'm not referring to the recent thing with the sandy bridge architecture, but a previous architecture.
Did some more research and it sounds like back in September some of them were produced at 32 nanometers and others were produced at 45 nanometers. Also there may have been some initial problems going to their new 32nm process.
Presumably by now they've got the issues that I remembered sorted out (so that they can have new and different issues like sandy bridge ports and so forth).
All the new MacBook Pros use the latest "Sandy Bridge" generation CPUs. You can tell by the type of integrated GPU. There was a problem with the secondary SATA controller in the first revision of Intel's chipset for these CPUs. This has since been fixed, and also only surfaces in systems with more than 2 SATA ports.
It's the Sandy Bridge series (the affected one), but it was the chipsets that were affected, and that supposedly won't be a problem with these laptops.
Comments
I don't think the laptop versions of the Core i* have 3 memory channels (neither do the Socket-1155/1156 desktop versions), so 3x4GB of RAM would be a strange/suboptimal configuration. There probably isn't enough physical space in a 13" laptop for more than 2 modules anyway (unless you sacrifice battery or optical drive space). Even soldering them to the motherboard wouldn't save much space - I think all current 4GB modules use 16 DRAM chips.
The move from Core2Duo to Core i* alone should bag you a substantial improvement in processing power, at least; the lack of a quad-core model is presumably a battery life and cooling system trade-off.
unless you sacrifice [...] optical drive space
What they really sacrificed here was the opportunity to make a compelling product. It's 2011, when have you last time used an optical drive?
I have no idea why they're still so popular. I can only assume people don't think about it rationally. I don't know anyone who drags DVDs around with them, so why drag around the drive?
Frankly, I haven't needed an optical drive in a laptop since booting from USB drives became practical a few years ago. (happy MacBook Air user here)
It'll be interesting to see if Apple fleshes out its Cinema display into a combined docking station and screen using the Thunderbolt port's potential. Add a DVD drive, HDD for Time Machine, USB/Firewire controllers, ExpressCard slot, whatever, using the PCIe channel in the Thunderbolt.
It's 2011, when have you last time used an optical drive?
I see where you're standing. But actually I receive two DVDs per week in my mailbox, so last time was today. And I still buy CDs, yes.
I think what you really want is the next iteration of the Air with whatnot is missing from the current model.
So, honest question, would you not trade the internal CD-Rom for better battery life, more ram, lighter weight or some other tangible advantage?
The only situation where I could imagine an external CD-Rom to get in the way would be for watching DVDs on the go. But afaik even for that most people copy the movie to the harddrive beforehand - to prevent the drive from sucking the battery dry while watching.
Instead of the above trade off, I think I'd buy two machines if needed.
I see the MBP as a laptop to use plugged in a socket and with a lan cable at home, work, a client's place or a library, and only need decent portability and battery life. For all other uses I'd prefer the ipad or the Air(wish I get the $$ for it).
Last night, to rip a DVD from Netflix. Before that, I didn't use it often, to be fair, but I've still used it to install Office, to install OS X, and to burn a DVD with the complete audio _Ulysses_ on it.
Do I use it as often as I did, say, 10 years ago? No, but I can imagine why Apple would leave it.
I'm curious why they didn't put in a Blu-Ray reader/writer, if they're going to put in an optical drive at all?
Because it costs more.
When I updated the system to Snow Leopard.
Given the Air's recovery thumbdrive, I think Apple can start sell the next OS X version in thumbdrive form =).
1st thing I did when I receive my Snow Leopard DVD is to RIP it to my firewire HDD.
Yep, those CPUs only support 8GB max.
See the Intel Core i7 2620M (the 2.7Ghz part in the high-end 13" model) spec sheet for example: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52231
Interesting, I didn't realise the mobile versions don't even support multiple memory modules per channel. (which would allow for 4 modules like on many desktop systems, including the iMacs)
Wasn't there a problem with some of the core processors? I don't remember which ones, but I'd check very carefully.
Also worth checking out is what scale they are made at, I remember some of the core i processors were only being made at the higher nanometers scale (e.g. older less heat efficient technology).
It would be ironic if the Core i5 four core model was more battery efficient and produced less heat than the core i5 two core models...
Edit: no, I'm not referring to the recent thing with the sandy bridge architecture, but a previous architecture. Did some more research and it sounds like back in September some of them were produced at 32 nanometers and others were produced at 45 nanometers. Also there may have been some initial problems going to their new 32nm process.
Presumably by now they've got the issues that I remembered sorted out (so that they can have new and different issues like sandy bridge ports and so forth).
All the new MacBook Pros use the latest "Sandy Bridge" generation CPUs. You can tell by the type of integrated GPU. There was a problem with the secondary SATA controller in the first revision of Intel's chipset for these CPUs. This has since been fixed, and also only surfaces in systems with more than 2 SATA ports.
It's the Sandy Bridge series (the affected one), but it was the chipsets that were affected, and that supposedly won't be a problem with these laptops.