13" Macbook Pro Isn't A Pro

[Pocket lint]

You've really gotta see this thing in action before you speak. Yes it is small but that's what makes it great. If you need a bigger screen for some reason or another, you just go external.

I'm using mines to edit music, Logic & Garage band and it works out just fine for me. You upgrade the Hdd & add another 2 GB of Memory and your good. Makes for a nice extra computer when you can't be at your desk. If your someone on the move, this pro's for you.

Not if you want bigger resolution on the move (not all people work from a desk, you know), sturdier casing, dripholes, 9-13 hours of battery life, swappable batteries, a firewire chipset from TI, matte screen, and lest we forget, not wanting to have a huge glowing sign at the back screaming "STEAL ME!"

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Some of you are trying to fool yourselves into thinking that there really are no differences between a consumer level device vs. a pro device. A pro device caters to and is geared towards a specific purpose taking into account the skill of the user, thus hands over greater control and power to get the job done. Magazine publishers could write their entire works with word but that doesn't make it as professional as Adobe's InDesign which has features designed for the workflow of a professional who will use such an option on the day to day.

Simple, easy to use, not fully featured but hey the consumer won't use those features anyway :

But just because it takes pictures does not make it as robust as one of these:

Whats the difference? Control and ability. You might be able to tweak a few settings on the coolpix here and there, but the pro level option allows knowledgable individuals to do whatever the heck they like with their shots. If you can do your job your job with a coolpix and you get paid for it thats dandy, but I doubt your shots are getting any true play on the photojournalistic circuit. Else there wouldn't be a market for these cameras.

So why do I say the 13" isn't really pro? Too limited, for me, in terms of raw power. Well, to say the least it isn't anywhere near pro compared to the 17". Home users won't and obviously didn't utilize the expresscard slot and Apple for a short time thought FW800 was needless too, because compared to USB it WAS/IS a pro option. Most everything consumer grade can run off of USB, but you don't see any raid enclosures and multi channel audio perhiperals running solely off of USB (with few exceptions) when performance is a factor. With the 17" you can do pretty much anything you want to on the go, with such usability being required for the professional on the go who needs to have robust solutions available anywhere in the world at any time. A macbook (white) can do that, sure, but only to a certain extent.

 

[jfyrfytr25]

if all you guys think that there are better products and more usable solutions from PC manufacturers, then why are you in a MAC forum?

this was a discussion, although a ridiculous one, about the 13" macbook pro.

how is it that this is turning into a discussion about how other mfg. make better stuff. if you like you x1200 or whatever it is, go to a forum about it and talk about how great it is.

 

[5DollaFootlong]

just because it doesn't have a discreet graphics card doesn't make it not a pro machine.

 

[jfyrfytr25]

Some of you are trying to fool yourselves into thinking that there really are no differences between a consumer level device vs. a pro device. A pro device caters to and is geared towards a specific purpose taking into account the skill of the user, thus hands over greater control and power to get the job done. Magazine publishers could write their entire works with word but that doesn't make it as professional as Adobe's InDesign which has features designed for the workflow of a professional who will use such an option on the day to day.

Simple, easy to use, not fully featured but hey the consumer won't use those features anyway :

But just because it takes pictures does not make it as robust as one of these:

Whats the difference? Control and ability. You might be able to tweak a few settings on the coolpix here and there, but the pro level option allows knowledgable individuals to do whatever the heck they like with their shots. If you can do your job your job with a coolpix and you get paid for it thats dandy, but I doubt your shots are getting any true play on the photojournalistic circuit. Else there wouldn't be a market for these cameras.

So why do I say the 13" isn't really pro? Too limited, for me, in terms of raw power. Well, to say the least it isn't anywhere near pro compared to the 17". Home users won't and obviously didn't utilize the expresscard slot and Apple for a short time thought FW800 was needless too, because compared to USB it WAS/IS a pro option. Most everything consumer grade can run off of USB, but you don't see any raid enclosures and multi channel audio perhiperals running solely off of USB (with few exceptions) when performance is a factor. With the 17" you can do pretty much anything you want to on the go, with such usability being required for the professional on the go who needs to have robust solutions available anywhere in the world at any time. A macbook (white) can do that, sure, but only to a certain extent.

the point is there is nothing that says pro is this. pro means it has these features, pro means it is built this way. nothing says that. IT IS SUBJECTIVE.

i dont know alot about cameras, but a guy who takes wedding pictures and buys a high end nikon for 1-2 thousand. it is not a consumer camera since the average consumer would not pay that. However, the hollywood magazine photographer for maxim would look at that so called "pro" camera and laugh and say that is not a pro camera. this 8,000 dollar one is.

the difference is that apple made a line with that word in it. which has sparked this whole silliness.

the 13" is a pro machine, it is just at a different level of pro for different professionals and to be so closed minded about that is unfortunate.

 

[airplaneman]

All of these 'the 13" is not a Pro machine' threads are stupid, but this one takes the cake. It's not 'Pro' because it has a smaller screen and because the bezel "looks amateurish"? How on Earth does the bezel affect the productivity and usefulness of the machine? Right - it doesn't! It has no impact at all on whether the machine can be used for "Professional" needs or not.

As to the specs... do you need to be using 3D-intensive apps (about the only thing the 13" can't do as well as the others) to be a professional? Better not tell that to all those professional businesspeople, lawyers, doctors, bankers... you know, professionals for whom the specs of the 13" are more than adequate.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Sorry maybe I should have clarified this is about the spec AND aesthetic look of a machine supposedly labelled 'Pro'.

So if you don't like the look, you don't think it's "pro"? So, using your thinking, people who think anti-glare screens are ugly will think they are not "pro"?

 

[daneoni]

For me...No. No dedicated GPU means not Pro just marketing.

 

[iMacmatician]

<snip>

What I wanted to say but couldn't find the right words.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

This is the dumbest argument... who determines what a "pro" level machine has to do. I could make a laptop with any specs i want and call it the _____book exec. That doesn't mean it is only suitable for "executive" level work. Plus there are many different "professionals" who use the MBP for very different reasons, but all of them are still using it for "pro" needs. Just because one pro needs a bigger graphics card doesn't mean the next pro needs portability. It's just a name. It's not like they said you have to be a professional photographer to use the MBP, and if you aren't it wasn't designed for you.

 

[MacStu09]

Well,

In all honesty, you guys keep saying "what makes any of them pro machines?" And i think the answer to that would be "anything more powerful than the basic macbook." Which the 13" macbook pro basic package is not. My white 2008 macbook beats my 13" unibody pro by about 4% on all renders in Final Cut Pro. So my definition of macbook pro, should be something powerful enough to use pro applications well. I can't say it for all things, but my white macbook undoubtedly beats my 13" pro in power.
I actually keep the white one in my room as an editing computer, and take my 13" pro whenever i need a computer to take out of the house. One plus is that graphics on the "pro" are so much better. But either way, I dont even consider mine a pro since it can't whoop my white one. My friend's 15" definitely is a pro though, because it whoops both of mine by about 25-35% on rendering.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

the 13" is a pro machine, it is just at a different level of pro for different professionals and to be so closed minded about that is unfortunate.

Tell me, Is there anything you can't do on the latest 13 inch polycarbonate revision (affectionately known as a Macbook) that you can do on the 13" uMBP and nothing cheezy like run fw800 devices. There are plenty of things that you legitimately CANNOT do on a 13" MBP that you can do on a 17" which goes beyond graphics capabilities. The 15" is really the only machine that can offer anything to "a different level of pro" considering it has discreet graphics.

 

[silentnite]

Not if you want bigger resolution on the move (not all people work from a desk, you know), sturdier casing, dripholes, 9-13 hours of battery life, swappable batteries, a firewire chipset from TI, matte screen, and lest we forget, not wanting to have a huge glowing sign at the back screaming "STEAL ME!"

I understand everything that your saying, however when your not happy with something, you simply do not buy it. You could always go to windows they have a laptop waiting for everyone. The reason why this 13" pro came about was because people were not happy with the white 13" the screen was not good, it was plastic, the battery life sucked etc. Then the uni body 13" had no firewire. I have learned you cannot please everyone. You gotta find something and make it work.

As for stealing it from you, you can't live your life worrying about people taking things from you. Let's say you get the money to drive a nice car, Mercedes Benz, do you you not buy it from fear someone will take it from you and deprive yourself of something nice. I wouldn't! The 13" is a nice mac pro it works for people who cannot or will not spend a lot of money for a 17" pro.

 

[markintosh]

Funny....

I think it is funny that there are some that will spend all of their time arguing whether or not something is "PRO" or not.

Personally, as a Professional Educator and Photographer, the 13" MacBook Pro is near perfect. You all can sit and argue about the glossy screen and non-discreet graphics all day long. In the meantime, I am carrying my lightweight powerful image editing machine around everywhere I go. And I have to say to everyone complaining about the glossy screen - 1. EASIEST to clean I have ever seen. 2. The COLORS in photos are INCREDIBLE. The fact that it is aluminum finally gives me the ability to do that. Several of the polycarb ones would have been destroyed by now.

The NAME doesn't matter, its a tool. Get out there and use it!

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

In all honesty, you guys keep saying "what makes any of them pro machines?" And i think the answer to that would be "anything more powerful than the basic macbook." Which the 13" macbook pro basic package is not. My white 2008 macbook beats my 13" unibody pro by about 4% on all renders in Final Cut Pro. So my definition of macbook pro, should be something powerful enough to use pro applications well. I can't say it for all things, but my white macbook undoubtedly beats my 13" pro in power.
I actually keep the white one in my room as an editing computer, and take my 13" pro whenever i need a computer to take out of the house. One plus is that graphics on the "pro" are so much better. But either way, I dont even consider mine a pro since it can't whoop my white one. My friend's 15" definitely is a pro though, because it whoops both of mine by about 25-35% on rendering.

What are the specs of the 2 machines? You could have bought an upgraded macbook, and a bottom line pro, that doesn't mean that the pro isn't a pro machine. The lowest end pro is higher spec'd than the lowest end macbook. And who says pro has to be about rendering performance. Perhaps some would consider it pro due to screen enhancements, better keyboard, trackpad, longer battery life, more industrial design. Perhaps not every "pro" out there is a video editor, and perhaps fast rendering times don't equate to a professional machine for them.

My point, not everyone is in the same profession, so saying this machine is no longer pro is pointless because although it may not live up to your expectations, doesn't mean it doesn't perfectly suit anothers needs.

 

[jdechko]

The 13 inch "Pro" uses a 6-bit screen which supports dithering to make it look as if it supports millions of colors. The 15 inch has an 8-bit screen which supports millions of colors.

I feel sorry for any professional designer who gets the 13 inch pro and thinks it has the same quality as the 15 inch.

It's not that the name is unimportant, it's that Apple calls them that when they are not of the same quality. A backlit keyboard does not a Pro make; some people actually rely on them for work.

The 15inch doesn't use a 8bit screen either. They are all 6bit.

But then, a lot of professional designers wouldn't be using a laptop screen for production work, would they? They'd have color calibrated 8-bit external monitors or dedicated video monitors, and they would only use the internal screen for when they were out working or for rough edits. (Or they'd just use their Mac Pros).

 

[darkdream]

None of the apples are "pro" enough then...

 

[jfyrfytr25]

Some choice words lol The choice to take offense as well as place yourself as the subject of my focus is yours and yours alone.



Tell me, Is there anything you can't do on the latest 13 inch polycarbonate revision (affectionately known as a Macbook) that you can do on the 13" uMBP and nothing cheezy like run fw800 devices. There are plenty of things that you legitimately CANNOT do on a 13" MBP that you can do on a 17" which goes beyond graphics capabilities. The 15" is really the only machine that can offer anything to "a different level of pro" considering it has discreet graphics.

yes i can name something i can do with a 13" that i cant do with a whitebook

I can take a 13" MBP to work, and have meetings all day long, show presentations, write proposals and come with 20% battery life left.

see for me battery life is my Pro feature that makes a machine. to you it may be GPU. but the stupid stereotype that all pros are graphical artists is one that was developed years ago and needs to be dropped.

what you fail to understand is just because the 17" can do them, does not mean that they would have any bearing in my professional life. i dont care there is no express card I don't use it. the integrated GPU is plenty.

by the way, i dont even own the 13" i have a 15" but i am not so narrow minded to think that mine is more of a pro than the 13"

 

[MacStu09]

No, I agree with you burton. The graphics and keyboard are definitely better than my white one, i dont like the trackpad as much, but yea, thats why i said im not sure about everything else, but as far as rendering, the white beats out the pro. They all have their ups and downs, and everyone will have different qualifications. But as far as power, the 13" pro is a little lacking. and the specs are almost dead even, except my pro has ddr3 ram while my white has ddr2.

 

[reallynotnick]

Ugh I voted for No because I assumed Yes would be on top....

 

[nick9191]

High quality screen
Best in class build quality
Lightweight
Firewire 800
Backlit Keyboard
7 hour battery

I consider it a pro machine. Although what I or anyone else considers it to be doesn't matter, as long as it fits the needs of the professional that buys it, then it lives up to its name.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

yes i can name something i can do with a 13" that i cant do with a whitebook

I can take a 13" MBP to work, and have meetings all day long, show presentations, write proposals and come with 20% battery life left.

see for me battery life is my Pro feature that makes a machine. to you it may be GPU. but the stupid stereotype that all pros are graphical artists is one that was developed years ago and needs to be dropped.

what you fail to understand is just because the 17" can do them, does not mean that they would have any bearing in my professional life. i dont care there is no express card I don't use it. the integrated GPU is plenty.

by the way, i dont even own the 13" i have a 15" but i am not so narrow minded to think that mine is more of a pro than the 13"

But even better, I can take this "to work, and have meetings all day long, show presentations, write proposals and come with 20% battery life left" too :

So either this cute little 250 dollar dell mini is as pro/robust as your 13", 15" whatever, or maybe your computing needs aren't that complex ? I'm banking its the latter. Like I said before, my definition of a pro machine is one that goes beyond normal computing of word processing, listening to music, e-mail and presentations. My TI-89 could probably do presentations if I jury rigged something up to the I/O port.

But lets just agree to disagree. You think something is pro based solely on the user (thus making a water bottle pro if a pro athlete uses it, whilst that same bottle becomes a mere "standard" model if used by a commoner such as myself) while I believe that the pro moniker designates an emphasis on performance and output and offers options that are not available on standard models, and in this specific situation, is used incorrectly (from my interpretation).

 

[Hrududu]

Things were so much simpler back when Apple laptops were iBooks and Powerbooks...

 

[JonHimself]

Things were so much simpler back when Apple laptops were iBooks and Powerbooks...

... well, I mean... the Powerbook was more designed for the "power" user but I bet I could do some power-user things on the iBook... hmm.

 

[Pocket lint]

Things were so much simpler back when Apple laptops were iBooks and Powerbooks...

Or before that, when the only laptop Apple produced were called PowerBook.
Dual battery bays, anyone?

 

[Gatteau]

I would just think of it as a way Apple labeling/branding their products.