Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk
Posted on March 17th, 2009 by Mike Jennings
Apple’s limited specs appeal
When it comes to in-depth lists of specifications, Apple certainly seems lazier than most. When most other notebook manufacturers seem to love reeling off lists of hardware – take a look at Sony’s exhaustive spec list for the VAIO TT, for instance – Apple take a different tack by being incredibly vague.
A quick glance at its page of ‘tech specs’ for the new 17in MacBook Pro reveals that the machine has either a 2.66GHz or 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 320GB hard disk with an optional SSD and an 8x slot-loading SuperDrive. But there’s no mention of which model of CPU it is, or the amount of cache on the hard disk.
That’s not the end of Apple’s vague spec-babble, though. I wanted to confirm the technology behind the extraordinary screen that I raved about in my review and, to ensure that I got proper information rather than rumour and gossip, contacted the company directly – and it seems that the vagueness of specification is prevalant throughout Apple.
I wanted to check, specifically, if the screen uses a similar RGB LED technology to that seen in the Dell Studio XPS 16 a couple of weeks back – and I’ve since found out that it doesn’t – but the reply was somewhat vague.
“We don’t go into that level of detail”, claimed the Apple representative, going on to reassure me that “the display is the best ever put in a Mac notebook.” It may be the official company line, but it’s not ideal for the creative professional who needs to know about the technology behind their screen, which is surely a market that Apple is squarely aiming at with this latest MacBook Pro.
I suppose I can take solace in the fact that it’s the finest screen to ever go into a Mac notebook – according to Apple, anyway. I’ve no reason to doubt its quality, of course, but sometimes it’s just nice to go into technicalities.
12 Responses to “ Apple’s limited specs appeal ”
Leave a Reply
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
Authors
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement
March 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“We don’t go into that level of detail”, claimed the Apple representative.
And indeed, why should they, that’s not what the average Mac user wants. They want something that is really, really ridiculously good looking and, more importantly, something that they can be seen using in public, so that everyone else can bask in their Mac aura.
If Derek Zoolander had a computer, it would be a Mac.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Oh come on, why the Mac hate? It’s just childish. The main thing is that it works. If PC owners want to get into all the minutiae then so be it, but for heaven’s sake why make a big deal about it, and the Zoolander comment is pathetic. Some people prize ease of use and the fact it just does what it’s supposed to at a professional level. I gave up on Windows because every speed bump is negated by anti-virus software and firewalls and filters.
Get over it. Macs just work.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
This sort of information is only useful if you have something to compare it with. I agree with the comment about processor IDs, as this sort of information is generally available, but screen specs are not generally very useful because there usually isn’t a choice. I also detect trust issues here. In my experience if it’s good enough for Apple then it is probably good enough, full stop. This may change, especially if there is a change of management, but I think it makes a lot of sense to take Apple at their word.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
For the money being spent, I’d say a lot of people might wanna know!
March 18th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@ Mr Staoles – And then you wonder why some Mac users are so defensive about their choice of computer? It’s almost as ridiculous as saying that all PC users are conformist, beige suit wearing, business-men. Making sweeping statements doesn’t really add to the debate, does it
?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:26 am
“Macs just work”
At a basic level, yes – but when you want to do something a bit more complicated they aren’t as user-friendly as many would like to claim.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:58 am
@ Bryan
Ah, you mean like all those Mac adverts….?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’m not sure how David figures that if you want to do something more complicated then Macs aren’t as user friendly. The Unix roots of OS X make it immensly powerful, but the majority of users simply do not need to delve that deep. I think that’s more subjective, in that people who are used to delving into Windows (and i know my way around the core of Windows too) might find they have to adjust to the different way of doing things beyond the basic UI. This is hardly more complicated, just different to what some may be used to. It doesn’t make it any less valid.
Personally i can’t be bothered with the Mac / PC debate, both are valid system choices, it’s surely down to what the user wants. All of the hate for either platform is simply childish IMO (note this is not a dig at David here, i’m just making a general point)
As for detail of specs, a lot of the additional detail is really more “nice to know” but not essential. the average user wants to know CPU speed, amount of RAM etc. the exact CPU chip used and so on is less relevant. That said it would be nice if Apple were a little more forthcoming over the fine details.
One thing is for sure though, when i made the move to the Mac platform at home, i wasn’t disappointed with the build quality or the performance of my iMac. It is a great machine and not only does it do everything i want it to do and plenty more besides (i have several VMs for testing), it also opened up new creative avenues for me using tools such as iLife.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:16 am
It seems a shame that Apple don’t have the information readily available, for the people that do want to know. And what about professionals?
The high-end Lenovo ThinkPads now come with a screen calibrator and a tablet built in. The tablet is a bit gimmicky, but given the amount of time we waste here with poorly calibrated (or uncalibratable) screens, that is nice to have. (I put one site up on the test server and the project manager asked me why the background was a solid colour? On my screen, the designers rendering was shown as a solid colour, because the screen was such poor quality that you couldn’t actually see the colour gradient!)
What would be important in a review is how consistent the screen is. The new iMacs got a poor review in c’t, because the 24″ unit they received couldn’t be turned down below 200cd/m² (average) – 100 is recommended for general office use – and at 200cd/m² in the middle of the screen, the actual brightness ran from 207cd/m² in the top left, down to 177cd/m² in the bottom right of the screen! That is a big fluctuation.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Tesco have their own brand label so that they can change their supplier at will. The customer has no brand loyalty to the underlying product / recipe because they don’t know who actually makes it.
Perhaps Apple don’t want you to know, in order to avoid potential negative feedback when they “change the recipe”?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Mulvaney – perhaps that’s a reason why Apple is so reluctant to give away specific details. Surely, though, they could ensure the quality of components rather than having to hide things away in case they get some complaints. It does seem a devious way of doing things; but then again, it is Apple.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I have nothing to say on the Mac v PC debate, because I pre-date either platform and I use both. I don’t happen to find OSX more productive, but to balance that, I also don’t find Windoes to be crashy – but I know that’s just me.
What I would add, mostly to the review, is that actually the clickable trackpad on the Mac Powerbooks DOES exactly replicate the function of a button – clickng at the top of the pad requires 10 times more force than clicking at the bottom edge. I used my demo new Macbook Pro by scrabbling with the fingers of one hand and clicking with the index finger of the other hand, in the centre bottom of the trackpad. Works a treat.