Which Model 13" MBP for Aperture?

I am a heavy user of Aperture, and keep several other apps open constantly. I currently have a 2010 13" MBP that I've upgraded to 8GB, and it's always running right up against the limit of RAM.
I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
Should I pay up for the top processor, or would the basic 2.5 GHz i5 still give me a boost?
Will the newer model and SSD give me a big boost, or do I really need to go for a 15" and 16GB? I don't do video, just photos, but I process a lot of them.
I want the 13" for portability.
Any advice appreciated.

SunnyShots wrote:
I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
Believe it or not, yes.
SSD's have limited write capability, likely won't reach it, but if your drive is filled up, then the small space remaining can be exhausted and the 10% of spares used, then your SSD can prematurely die.
My advice is to get one with at least twice as much space as your ever going to use.
I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
Upgrade to a a top end 15" anti-glare instead. The Retina's are overrated, hot blow on the display, and you don't use the resolution its capable of anyway.
The 15" has a discrete GPU so it keeps the heat off the CPU, it's faster and lasts longer through annual OS X upgrades.
The anti-glare screen you can see the screen clear in just about any environment, no so with the glossy Retina's.
I'm very surprised working with photo's you are fast to accept glossy displays, most photographers howl at them because the glare blocks the screen image.
Get a anti-glare while you still can, it seems Apple doesn't care about the pro market by discontinuing them.
https://macmatte.wordpress.com/
But I process a lot of them.  I want the 13" for portability.
You really need the graphics performance of the 15", the 13" only has Intel HD CPU graphics, equal to your $400 office store PC.
The slightly extra screen real estate of the 15" is nice, (more so on the 17" but they quit those) no need to sit with the thing on your chest to use it.
The weight difference is slightly more, your driving a vehicle most likely, either way it's really not a big deal breaker, but the larger screen and better graphics performance is going to come in handy with lots of RAM and a SSD, especially for Aperture and a lot of photo's (I know)

Similar Messages

  • Which New MacBook Pro for Aperture...?

    I'm need to get another Mac laptop and would like to get one of the new 15" MacBook Pro models. It seems like the entry-level model is the sweet spot this time. I would have to pay $500 more to get more VRAM and 50GB more disk space and a slightly faster processor. For Aperture it's all about the graphics card and both of the 15" models have the same card except the cheaper one has 256mb VRAM and the other has 512.
    Would I notice the difference (with Aperture) between 256 and 512 on the VRAM? I think this is the deciding factor.
    Thanks,
    Robert

    I'm not so sure about the need for 512 MB as opposed to 256. I'm running Aperture on a two year old iMac with 128 MB of GPU RAM and it works just fine. A 512 MB card is not inherently faster than a 256 card; in fact, unless those extra 256 MB are used, they are just as fast.
    On the other hand you will most certainly benefit from the larger L2 cache. There is no question that the 2.5 model is a faster computer when running Aperture but I personally think that the $500 price difference between the 2.4 and 2.5 model is just a little too much. I will probably order the cheaper model and save that $500 towards a D300 instead!
    /Martin

  • I'm confused on which OS is needed for Aperture 3

    I was going to purchase Aperture 3 for organizing and editing my photo library. As I am having some problems editing with Aperture 2 using OS X 10.9.5 (Maverick)
    I read the specifications for Aperture 3 from the Apple store and it stated that "Mac OS X 10.9" (or later). is what's need for the OS.
    But when I went to purchase it from the App store it states "Compatibility OS X 10.10" (or later).
    Thus the confusion.
    Will the Aperture 3 download form the app store work using Maverick 10.9.5. I don't really want to upgrade the OS to Yosemite?
    Thanks
    JS

    I tested to launch Aperture 3.6 from my Mavericks partition, but no go. It will not launch, not even the binary in the Application package. It is giving this error message.
    /My_HD/Applications/Aperture.app/Contents/MacOS/Aperture ; exit;
    application requires at least Mac OS X version 10.10.0 (10.10), but is being run on 10.9.5 ( 10.9.5/13F34), and so is exiting.Abort trap: 6
    logout
    You could try two things:
    Search for a boxed Aperture 3 upgrade installer at Ebay or Amazon. This will install an early Aperture 3 version, and you can update this early version using the Aperture 3 updaters from the Supports Download page to Aperture 3.4.5. Then try the update to Aperture 3.5.1.  Only, this will probably be much more expensive than buying from the AppStore.
    Try to buy Aperture 3 from the AppStore. It should not download Aperture 3.6 while you are running Mavericks, but offer to download Aperture 3.5.1, or refuse to download.

  • Which MAC better suited for Aperture ?

    I've a budget around 1900-2000 euro (more or less the same price in US dollars for the US market)
    The choice would be either one of the new iMac or a MacBookPro ...
    In both cases there is some level of choice whether to invest money on:
    1) either go for the model with more performing video card
    2) either the model with more performing CPU or more RAM or (even) a solid-state disk
    Just to make it clear: I'm not a pro, I've been able to use Aperture, till now, on a 2007 MacBook
    and I didn't feel so bad as regards managing previews, while I'd like some more horsepower
    while editing single images (as soon as the list of adjustments applied gets long, the spinning
    beach ball takes home on my screen and I have to wait more and more time !)
    ... The time needed to zoom in at 100% is annoying to ...
    So the question is: are these operations (adjustments, zooming into the image) demanding more
    on CPU, or on GPU or ... what else ?
    To make an example: would a MacBookPro be performing more fast than an iMac
    (I don't care of the smaller screen size, since I'm used to adjust images at 100% zoom) ?
    Is it worth going to the MacBookPro with Radeon HD 6750M and 1GB memory, or would
    a Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB perform as well, investing the saved money in more
    RAM ?
    Speaking of photo applications I'd naively suppose it's better to go with a more performing GPU,
    but probably most of the GPU power is reserved for film encoding/decoding, not for photo adjustments ...
    Thank you for your help

    Whatever you get you want an SSD. That makes iMacs relatively very expensive.
    Mobility is a HUGE benefit. iMacs lack mobility.
    Top 2011 MBPs with SSD are true desktop replacement boxes. Very strong performance and Thunderbolt removes the achilles heel of past laptops, i/o. Previously I had a Mac Pro plus Macbook Pro workflow and it worked. Now I have a desktop-replacement 2011 MBP and it is way better. If you sell your current laptop and apply the money to a new MBP + external display the MBP comparison price gets very attractive as compared to MBP plus iMac.
    Aperture runs well on 8 GB RAM, and in any event 2011 MBPs will take 16 GB RAM. Currently prices are unacceptably high for the required 8 GB DIMMs but the capability is there when prices fall, which they will. As you do your analyses include RAM to 8 GB (post-purchase via third party, much cheaper).
    iMacs have glossy-only displays. Many image pros including me find those displays unacceptable. MBPs have matte displays available. New Macbook Airs (MBAs) are glossy too, but seem to present less glare than iMacs do. Each individual needs to visually compare displays before purchasing.
    MBAs are the low end for heavy graphics apps like Aperture, not recommended.
    I own a 17" 2011 MBP with SSD and 8 GB RAM and Aperture flies on it. Adding SSD to a top 2011 MBP costs only +$100, and the optical drive can inexpensively be replaced with a third-party hard drive of up to 1000 GB (1 TB) when necessary. IMO an SSD is a necessity, not an option.
    During desktop use fast external hard drives like Promise Thunderbolt RAID arrays can be added, as can quality non-glossy displays like the $300 Viewsonic VP2365wb or the better NEC 2490. I have the Viewsonic aligned above a 17" MBP and it is a nice combination. Two displays IMO is much preferable for graphics work.
    SSD is a huge boost. I put OS, apps, Library and Referenced Masters on the SSD, then relocate the Masters to external drives when editing is complete. Aperture performance is essentially instant.
    BareFeats.com has relative graphics performance tests up at:
    http://barefeats.com/mba11_02.html
    Insights from Rob Art Morgan at Barefeats:
    "Though more than adequate for mere mortal tasks (Safari, Mail, etc.), the 2011 MacBook Air remains at the bottom of the Mac "food chain" when running apps that stress the CPU, GPU, and memory. This will be further illustrated with soon-to-be posted tests using After Effects, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc."
    From an earlier post of mine regarding Aperture hardware:
    Aperture is a hardware hog: GPU, CPU, i/o, RAM. Although many Macs will run Aperture, those intending Aperture as an important app will do far better with the strongest available hardware in a given category.
    All new Macs have Thunderbolt, so as of 2011 we can scratch i/o as a performance limiter (except see SSD comments below).
    Aperture (3.1.2, OS 10.6.8) seems to like about 4 GB of RAM all to itself. On  2011 boxes 8 GB RAM generally works well with multiple concurrent apps. From the standpoint of cost-effective upgrading, adding third party RAM to achieve 8 GB or more is something every Aperture user should do. By the time we reach v4 Aperture I would bet that having more than 8 GB RAM on board will be useful; it may be already with Lion, but I have not been running Lion due to known issues with Adobe apps.
    Graphics in 2011 Macs vary widely, so IMO the graphics processing unit (GPU) may be the most important variable for comparing new Aperture boxes in 2011 . The GPU itself is important, but even more importantly evaluating the GPU strength turns out to be a pretty good way to compare 2011 Mac Aperture performance.
    Relatively real-world 2011 graphics hardware test results on pro applications have been performed by well-respected testers, see below. I have not yet seen meaningful Aperture-specific tests, however experience since v1 Aperture has been that Aperture performance has been keenly dependent upon the strength of the graphics processor. E.g. a Mac Pro with lame graphics card will underperform on Aperture.
    In my experience (2011 17" MBP) the benefits of SSDs are huge. I consider the fastest Aperture workflow to have both Library and Referenced Masters on SSD, then when work on a Project is complete the Referenced Masters are relocated to hard drives. I am doing that now and everything on the box is essentially instant.
    Comparative Final Cut Pro test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others are up at barefeats.com:
    http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
    Comparative Motion test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others also are up at barefeats.com:
    http://barefeats.com/wst10g12.html
    Comparative 2011 MBP Graphics test results at barefeats.com:
    http://barefeats.com/mbps04.html
    INSIGHTS from BareFeats.com:
    "1. The 2011 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz MacBook Pro with Radeon 6750M graphics (1GB GDDR5) is a 'different animal' from the 2011 2.0GHz MacBook Pro with the Radeon 6490M graphics (256MB GDDR5). Is it worth $300 more (comparably equipped). Yes, when you consider you are getting a faster CPU and much faster GPU.
    2. The 2011 2.7GHz MacBook Pro with Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics does little or nothing to improve the 3D graphics performance compared to the GeForce 320M integrated graphics in the 2010 MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro."
    HTH
    -Allen Wicks

  • New 15" MBP for Aperture & Adobe - I5 or I7

    Hi.
    I have an older MBP with a blown screen (note to self- laptop screens and lemonade don't mix well). I use it for basic applications like Mail, Safari, MS Office. I'm also starting to use it for photos using PS CS3 and Aperture. Can anyone tell me what the 15" I7 will do for me over the I5 (or for that matter if there are any negatives vs the I5). I know that the I5 or I7 are both overkill for the basic stuff. I'm most concerned about what type of benefit I'll see in adobe, which is painfully slow on my current mac.
    Also, is there any benefit to upgrading to the 7200 rpm hard drive over the stock 5400 rpm hd?
    Thanks
    Ken

    Hi Ken,
    The i7 will definitely be faster, especially for graphically intensive applications like Photoshop because the chip can temporarily overclock itself when needed. The only downside I can think of for the i7 is that it costs more money. However, in some cases, the graphics card is more important than the CPU. If you're using CS4 or planning to upgrade to CS5, you will definitely want a computer with the beefiest graphics card you can get as Photoshop CS4 and above can use OpenGl, thus taking the load off the CPU. But for most people, I feel that the i5 should suffice. I'm still running a 1.5 year old 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo chip and my computer is still zippy when it comes to Photoshop, Final Cut, or anything else for that matter.
    As for the HDD, If you're doing a lot of Photoshop work, definitely go for the 7200rpm drive. I just upgraded my laptop to a 7200rpm drive, and I can tell you that my computer is definitely faster. That's not only doing intense graphics work, but also in everyday tasks like booting up.
    Hope this helps.

  • Which  current Mac Pro for Aperture/Photoshop

    After much research and what seems to be chasing my tail, I though I'd ask the forum for some advice on which machine will best suit my needs. I am currently running Aperture and Photoshop CS3 and looking for a fast machine for the job. I sort through around 2500-3000 raw files per week and hope the new Intel Xeons will speed up my workflow. It's the question of "How many cores are better?" that's confusing me as I am unclear on how many Aperture and Photoshop can actually make use of.
    I'm looking to upgrade from my 3.06 iMac to a Mac Pro but having trouble choosing between a new 2.66 quad or a refurbished 2.26 8-core. I understand the drop in processor speed might be noticeable in some instances but the from what I have gathered an upgrade to the ATI HD 4870 is a must as is 6GB ram on the 2.66 and 8GB ram on the 2.26. It's not so much the price difference of the two machines (£2200 for the upgraded 2.66 and roughly £2700 for a refurbished 2.26 plus upgrades) it's will my workflow see any great benefits from the 8-core over the quad. The program I use most is Aperture, followed by Photoshop then FotoMagico, iDVD and Toast Titanium. Does Snow Leopard affect the use of cores in these programs?
    Any feedback is much appreciated or pointing in the direction of some real world tests as all the bench tests of the 8-core are so impressive but I'll not be using it for 3D/Video at all.
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    According to the Adobe blog the delay in offering a 64-bit suite for Mac is because the entire suite has to be rewritten in Cocoa (both previous and current offerings are written in Carbon) CS5 will be written in Cocoa and will utilise the full functionality of the Snow Leopard OS (OpenGL, GCD etc) so memory addressing will be a huge step forward on Photoshop (which I use).
    I used Photoshop CS4 on a 2008 Mac Pro 2 x 2.8GHz 8 core (dual Xeon 5400 series Quad core CPUs) and just recently switched to a 2009 Mac Pro 2 x 2.26GHz 8 core (Xeon 5500 series Quad core CPUs). I used CS3 on the original Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz (Dual Xeon Dual Core CPUs = 4 cores total). It's not a fair reflection as CS3 ran under Rosetta on the original Mac Pro and CS4 has better integration on the Intel based Macs, but in general, I noticed a much better rate of workflow on the 8 core machines over the 4 core machine.
    More importantly, I would point out that running batch process of RAW files in CaptureOne Pro was significantly performing the batch process on the 8 core machines than on the 4 core machine. (250 RAW files {with no corrections] from a Canon EOS 1D MKII into 16-bitt TIFF files). I can't remember the exact figures but the 8 core machines were @ 23 - 25 minutes quicker than the 4 core machine.
    I know it's not scientific and software versions were different which could add to the different results in part, but the 8 core machines both out performed the 4 core machine substantially.
    However, the 2009 Mac Pro Quad Core is capable of running 2 threads per core (in effect a virtual 8 core machine and as many reviewers have pointed out, perform faster than the 8 core Mac Pro in certain applications (which have not been written to utilise the full multi-CPU-multi-core environment.
    The Memory limitation on the Quad Core is 16GB RAM (Apple state 8GB but reviewers have installed 4 x 4GB DIMMs into the Quad Core without issue). Unless you are doing 3D or HD rendering etc you probably won't really need over 16GBs of RAM, however the cost of 4GB memory sticks is expensive. Crucial only offer a 12GB kit for the Quad Core Mac Pro 2009 to make full use of the triple channel memory speeds (DDR3 best performance in multiples of 3) and 12GBs from Crucial is @£771.00 (prices correct at time of writing this. This equates to @ £257 per 4GB.
    Total for Quad Mac Pro with 12GB (3 x 4GB RAM) = £2670
    Total for Octo Core Mac Pro with 12GB (6 x 2GB RAM) =£2731 (New price not refurb)
    Graphics card upgrade etc will be the same on both machines. Memory based on Crucial Memory prices.
    So, for a 2009 Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, it is £61 dearer for an 8 core (virtual 16 cores) machine over the Quad Core Mac Pro. The 8 core system will give you further memory expansion once prices of the 4GB memory sticks come down significantly. The Quad Core will only be able to be upgraded with 8GB RAM sticks over the 4GB sticks available now and will cost a huge amount at time of launch.
    Buying a refurbishment 2.26 GHz with similar memory upgrade would in my opinion be the way to go. I know the CPU clock speed is lower, but in real time non memory intensive applications the difference will be hardly noticeable.
    I went through the same dilemma as you. I opted for the 8 core system with 12GB RAM and the ATI HD4870 graphics (bought as an upgrade kit so was dearer than the build to order option). I am very happy with my purchase.
    The other option is to check out eBay there may be a very well spec'd 2008 Mac Pro for sale with warranty, 16GB RAM and the 8800GT graphics card for less than either of the new systems.
    Over the long term, the 8 core offers more affordable customisation options over the Quad Core, but it depends on how long you plan to use the machine

  • Which model !!

    Hi there .
    I have  WAG120N  home router .
    I need to add  VPN connection in my router so all of my device( my phone and my tablet) can access to the internet through my router but look like there is no option for doing this in WAG120N.
    So I decide to buy new model and I prefer to buy linksys modem.
    I really don't know  which model is right for me Please if you can help me for selecting  my modem . thx a lot

    Hi,
    Your WAG120N is a VPN Passthrough device. Just make sure that VPN tunnel passthrough are enabled under Security - VPN Passthrough on the ADSL Gateway's Web UI. Are you planning to setup your own VPN server? If you do, please check this link for some guide: http://www.vpnbook.com/howto/
    Hope this helps.
    If everyone needs to believe in something, I believe I'll have another beer..

  • Which Mini for Aperture?

    I am looking to purchase a Mini, and could use some guidance on which model to choose. Aside from the typical usage, I rely on Aperture, InDesign, and Photoshop. Not much in the way of gaming or video production. Does the discrete GPU have a significant impact on these types of uses, or am I better off going low end and upgrading to a faster hard drive and more RAM? Are there others out there running these apps on either machine?
    Thanks in advance.

    Hi!
    I have a Mac mini 2,3 Ghz i5 (since a week) with 2GB memeory and I use Apperture, Canon Digital Photo Professional and sometimes Photoshop Elements 9. I use no further plugins.
    The mini is connected via HDMI to a 1080p capable TV screen LG
    and used as well as a media center (iTunes and playing TV-shows in DivX-format that I stream with Firefox).
    Here my experience:
    - Processor is ok - It hardly ever goes up above 100% (i.e. fills one of 4 cores) when using Aperture
         - editing by applying brushes is quite nice compared to my old setup.
         - nevertheless there are glitches like the cursor -frame is not shown or you see negative colours outside the edited areas.
    - Memory and Swap: that is where the issue is:
         - All those 64-bit apps eat memory like fresh bread:
                   - Apperture easyly goes up to 1,5GB - if you run it in 32-bit it is satisfied with 800MB
                   - the Lion itself leaves only 1GB free memory when started
                   - Photoshop used 600 MB two times
                   - as a result I always end with swap between 1,5GB and 2,9GB
                   - I use Aperture only in 32bit mode (otherwise the whole computer is too slow for even web-browsing or e-mail)
         - My next step will be to buy a 8GB memory upgrade.
         - It would be better to have a separate disk for the swap and one for the data. As you have Firewire 800 it is not a big issue to connect a quick disk that contains the data library. Reading of the library from the internal disk is seldom quicker than 2MB/s. Clearly the swap and the reading of media library is colliding
         - Well SSD ... I have no experience if that brings so much more in this particular case.
    Summary:
         - Mac mini 2,3Ghz i5 2GB
         - buy a non-Apple 8GB memory
         - nice RAID1 disk via Firewire 800
    I hope this helps

  • Which model of memory upgrade should I get for my MacBook Pro early 2011 model? I now have 2 - 2GB modules.

    Which model of memory upgrade should I get for my MacBook Pro early 2011 model? I now have 2 - 2GB modules.

    Installing RAM in a 2011-2012 MacBook Pro
    There is really only one way to install RAM into a 2011-2012 MacBook Pro and while there are hundreds of DIY videos online, I just like this one, found on YouTube, by “macmixing”.
    Note that there is a difference in the RAM that should be used in 2011 and 2012 models.
    2011 models must use:
    •204-pin PC-10600 (1333 MHz) DDR3 SO-DIMM
    And 2012 models must use:
    •204-pin PC3-12800 (1600 MHz) DDR3 SO-DIMM
    So here's the video:
    Remember that the 13", 15" and 17" 2011 models (early or late) and the 13" and 15" mid-2012 non-Retina models can handle 4GB, 8GB or (unofficially, but, believe me, it works) 16GB of RAM. There are, in my opinion, only two 100% Mac-compatible vendors out there: Crucial and OWC. I really can't recommend any other brands, even though it may work, as these are the only brands that I've personally used in quite a while. Also remember to stay away from any RAM that is a “value” brand - Macs are picky about RAM and often these value RAM modules just don’t work very well.
    Good luck,
    Clinton

  • I am considering getting an iphone...  Which model is the best for me to get?

    I am considering getting an iphone... I do not care about getting the "latest gadget", but have all apple products and would love the convenience of the calendar, music, camera, etc... on my phone. Which model is the best for me to get?
    Is it really worth it for the newest (and most expensive) model, or is the 3G sufficient for regular use? or is the 4 now the most basic model I should invest in? or do I really have to get the 4S?

    tonefox wrote:
    One wonders why you are hanging around Apple forums...
    Many have wondered before, even I, yet in the end I settled for a reason... "unbiased help":
    iPhone 4S Battery Life: Best solutions and procedures for 1st time user: 1-Do you have a battery life issue (learn first what the usage time spec is about) 2-What can you try to remedy the situation without reading 500 pages of posts

  • Which would you choose MBP for FCP7

    Ok here is my question. 
    I am looking to invest in a refurbished 15in MBP.  I cannot afford a new one at thist time.  Below is what I am planning to use it for and I will give you the two models I am looking at, I would really be thankful if any of you experts out there can give me a had in the selection.  Ok here it goes.
    Uses
    FCP7 (I will be shooting in AVCCAM(Both 1080 and 720p) and transfering it to Pro-Res 422(LT)
    Photoshop CS5 or CS6 (Using smaller images taken with an 8MP Camera, not looking to edit images over 12MP at this time.)
    Adobe Lightroom
    Some small use of After Effects.
    Surf The Web
    Watch a movie or two.
    Here are the two machines I am looking at.
    the October 2011 15inch MBP with 2.2Ghz Quar Core...I am planning to upgrade the memory to 8GB
    OR
    the April 2010 15inch MBP with 2.8 Intel Core i7....This model will have the matte Hi-Res screen not the glossy one I will get on the one above.  I am also planning to upgrade the memory to 8GB.
    I know these are not the AWSOME new machines that Apple is making, I cant afford them and cannot see ever being able to drop more then 1400 on a machine at this time.  I am not a real power user either.  I guess I am curious with these two processors and the two different displays what you all think is more important.
    Thanks everyone

    yv,
    Have you actually seen this "graininess" issue for yourself? I only ask because I was very hesitant about buying a MBP for that reason. I went into the Apple Store, compared screens between MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac. The MacBook screen was clearly inferior. The MacBook Pro (15") and the iMac screen looked comparable in quality. I saw no graininess.
    I went to CompUSA the following week. I brought my wife with me. She's a graphic designer, works on very good quality monitors all day--in fact she makes the purchasing decisions for the graphics department of a Fortune 500 company. We compared the same three sets of monitors. She came to the same conclusion as me: the MacBook monitor is inferior. The MacBook Pro and iMac monitors are not noticeably different in quality. In fact, she even thought the MacBook Pro was every bit as good as the Apple Cinema Display they had. I bought a MacBook Pro right there.
    I've been using it for about 6 weeks now. Its the best laptop screen I've ever used-better than my daughter's PowerBook G4 (last generation), better than my wife's high-end PC laptop (I think its a Toshiba), better than my son's PowerBook G4 (second to last generation). I also compare it to my higher end 22" external monitor (more expensive Gateway version). Sure, the external is better, but it isn't designed for a laptop.
    So, maybe I got lucky, and all the MacBook Pros at the Apple Store, and the ones at CompUSA and the one I purchased all happened to be the few that don't have this problem (mine was manufactured during the last week of November or the first week of December). Or, this is a relatively rare problem with one of the earlier batches. Or it is exaggerated to begin with. Take a look for yourself.

  • Where to buy my iPhone 5 from? I will be living in Canada for a while after 6 months. And returning to the UK regularly so I want an unlocked iPhone so I can use a local sim in Canada and a local sim in the UK to keep roaming costs down. But which model?

    Where to buy my iPhone 5 from? I will be living in Canada for a while after the next 6 months. And returning to the UK regularly so I want an unlocked iPhone so I can use a local sim in Canada and a local sim in the UK to keep roaming costs down. But which model?
    Thank you for you help in advance

    If you buy an iPhone at the UK or Canadian Apple stores, it should work on the GSM frequencies in both countries. LTE will not work as the LTE channels are different in each country and each iPhone sold in each country is only compatible on LTE channels of that particular country. Other wise it should be fine.
    Be aware that only the Apple store (retail or online) sells the unlocked iPhone in the UK. I think the situation is similar in Canada. (It is in the US).

  • My macbook is running slow and i wanted to know which SSD is compatible for a 2009 model macbook pro??

    my macbook is running slow and i wanted to know which SSD is compatible for a 2009 model macbook pro??

    GitongaKuria,
    several people here use Crucial, OWC and Samsung SSDs. I have a Samsung 840 PRO SATA III SSD in my Mid 2010 MacBook Pro, and your 2009 model and my 2010 model both have SATA II interfaces — these brands of SATA III SSDs (at minimum) work well in MacBook Pros with SATA II interfaces. In the case of the Samsung 840 EVO SSD, make sure that you visit the Samsung SSD firmware page to download and install its latest firmware.

  • How do I find out which battery is right for my mac pro 13 inch Processor  2.4 GHz Intel Core i5 late 2011 model

    how do I find out which battery is right for my mac pro 13 inch Processor  2.4 GHz Intel Core i5 late 2011 model

    You could try ringing apple and seeing if they will give you a model number for the battery and then find one on google. Or you may even be able to order one from apple themselves.
    They have support numbers for all over the world, in case you don't have the number you need, this is the support number website with all the numbers all over the world:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HE57?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

  • Which model No iphone5 is for Ireland

    Hello,
    I'm buying an iphone 5 from UAE for using in Ireland.
    I wanted to know which model No iphone5 is for Ireland ?
    I do travel between india and Ireland often, would the same model work in India & Ireland ??
    Thank you in advance

    Do NOT purchase an iPhone from the UAE.
    Any iPhone purchased from the UAE will NOT have facetime installed on it, nor will the phone be able to ever get FaceTime on it, no matter to which country is is brought.
    The warranty on the iPhone is NOT worldwide.  It is only available in the country of purchase (except for the EU, which is considered a single country for warranty purposes).
    It is best to purchase a phone in the country where you anticipate the majority the use will come.

Maybe you are looking for