The New Anti-glare 17" Unibody Macbook Pro

[goulwen]

Here we go: it's finaly delivery time for the new Anti-glare 17" Unibody Macbook Pro.

Here are some exclusive pictures and hot comments on the beauty:

The new Anti-glare 17", 2,93GHZ, 256 SSD Unibody Macbook Pro is amazing, thin and light. Thanks to its Anti-glare screen that gets ride of the heavy glossy glass and has a light and nice aluminum bezel.
The screen looks exactly like the old 17" MacBook Pros, and even if it doesn't offer the same luminosity as a gen 1 LED MacBook Air LCD, its light is about the one of an 30" Apple Cinema Display.
The new Mac Osx Built 9G2141 has a better colorsync profile than the older builts that will make your screen turn to blue.
The biggest deception, and not a small one, goes to the SSD wich is in fact a 256 Toshiba that won't read at speeds higher than 100 MO per seconds, wich is clearly a joke comparing to the speeds the Intel X-25 SSD reaches in reading ( 250 MO per seconds). Some of us would have really expected Apple to put the new 256 Samsung wich is rumored to compete with the X-25.

The overall impression holds in a simple word though: perfection.









more pictures here:
http://web.me.com/goulwen.pele/Macbook_Pro..._antiglare.html

[Metalizer]

looks great - am looking forward to test reports

[cheerful]

so it is true. the bezel is silver and not black as indicated by a source in Jan!

p.s. lovely pics. 17" is too large to be considered portable for me. but i know 'll appreciate the screen estate

[goulwen]

here are my fisrt bench:
fisrt with apple SSD and second with the X25:)

the X25 rocks, but needless to say i'm more than disapointed by the expensive Apple 256 SSD. waste of Money for now.
d'better buy an X25 160GB for the same price.

Attached File(s)

 bench_apple_SSD_256.jpg ( 84.53K ) Number of downloads: 7
 bench_intel_X25.jpg ( 81.72K ) Number of downloads: 7

 

[cheerful]

really a great difference! indeed from the performance perspective, one should've saved the money and gotten the intel SSD alternative.

[jolly]

here are my fisrt bench:
fisrt with apple SSD and second with the X25:)

the X25 rocks, but needless to say i'm more than disapointed by the expensive Apple 256 SSD. waste of Money for now.
d'better buy an X25 160GB for the same price.

It would be nice to know how the performance holds if you fill the disk 2 or 3 times and the SSD has to cope with the internal fragmentation.
Also if the disk (presuming it will go slower as all other disks do) will be reset when you format the drive [to see if apple correctly formats the drive)

Does anybody know if Apple has implemented the TRIM ata command already ?


Patrick aka Jolly

---
author of JollysFastVNC, ScreenRecycler , SmartSleep , SmartSokoban and more.

[linathael]

here are my fisrt bench:
fisrt with apple SSD and second with the X25:)

the X25 rocks, but needless to say i'm more than disapointed by the expensive Apple 256 SSD. waste of Money for now.
d'better buy an X25 160GB for the same price.

It would be nice to know how the performance holds if you fill the disk 2 or 3 times and the SSD has to cope with the internal fragmentation.
Also if the disk (presuming it will go slower as all other disks do) will be reset when you format the drive [to see if apple correctly formats the drive)

Does anybody know if Apple has implemented the TRIM ata command already ?


Patrick aka Jolly

---
author of JollysFastVNC, ScreenRecycler , SmartSleep , SmartSokoban and more.

Goulwen ran a test with a X25 almost full and the brand new empty Samsung: The X25 was still an easy winner, hands-down.
I doubt there is a lot of fragmentation in SSD, storage allocation is different.

[jolly]

Goulwen ran a test with a X25 almost full and the brand new empty Samsung: The X25 was still an easy winner, hands-down.
I doubt there is a lot of fragmentation in SSD, storage allocation is different.

Actually there is a lot of internal fragmentation happening as SSD can only erase 128/256 kByte chunks at a time, but 4k blocks can be written. As the SSD's with current filesystem implementations do not know which data is still used SSD's have to assume that all bytes ever written are still to be used in the future. It would be much easier for them if SSD's would get knowledge that if a file is erased the data on SSD can also be erased and reused by the SSD. Currently when you remove a file it won't get removed from the SSD however.

There is a better explanation on should filesystems be optimized for ssds.


Patrick aka Jolly
---
author of JollysFastVNC, ScreenRecycler , SmartSleep , SmartSokoban and more.

[Metalizer]

I'd like to know more about the screen. How does it match up for accuracy, say with
the matt 20 inch ACD?

...and how good for working with Photoshop?

Thanks

[Cri-cri]

...and how good for working with Photoshop?

Haven't seen the machine in the real life yet but for sure... better than with a glossy screen