Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13" MacBook Pro seems to be a runaway success for Apple ....(wow)
- Thread starter entatlrg
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As nice and portable as it is, I dont consider the 13" a Pro notebook still.....so I opted for the 15" 2.8GHz w/ 6MB Cache, 9600M GT 512MB and a wildly gorgeous screen. I had the aluminum 2008 MacBook 2.4GHz, the new 13" Pro just didnt do it for me when it came to playing with them in the Apple Store...it would have been like buying the same notebook again at full price
I disagree. If money bothered me that much id get a windoze laptop as this will be my first mac.
I will buying one as i find the 13" more portable...its not going to be my main computer and will only be used when im travelling etc. So i wanted the most portable machine available.
The vast majority of people make purchase decisions based on price, and so the fact that Apple now has a laptop at the $1100 price point that is pretty standard for a college student laptop, they are going like hotcakes.
People buy what is cheap. What influences YOU to buy, likely has zero influence on anyone else.
Size has nothing to do with it...people buy 17" dells because they're big and only $800. It always comes down to price when you're speaking about the vast majority of users.
Ha ha, the 15" 2.8? Oh, that's "REAL PRO".
Sorry for the eyerolling but to many people the specs on your 15" are hardly considered "Pro". It's just a very nicely spec'd computer. The 13" is no less of a pro then your 15", you just have a better GPU and a faster CPU. You want "Pro", then your 15" needs to have server grade parts at the very least.
I was debating between a 13" and a 15". I went with a 13" for the following reasons:
-The 15" seemed too big to carry around. The 13" seems quite a bit smaller. I was thinking about buying a 15" online, and then went to the apple store to look at them and decided it was just too big.
-There is a big difference in price between the two.
-I also have an imac with a 20" screen, or I could use an external monitor if I need more screen.
-The 15" seemed too big to carry around. The 13" seems quite a bit smaller. I was thinking about buying a 15" online, and then went to the apple store to look at them and decided it was just too big.
-There is a big difference in price between the two.
-I also have an imac with a 20" screen, or I could use an external monitor if I need more screen.
Ha ha, the 15" 2.8? Oh, that's "REAL PRO".
You want "Pro", then your 15" needs to have server grade parts at the very least.
CPU speed doesn't make a machine a "pro", nor does Hard drive space or RAM (although the 8GB limit does help). And I don't know of any laptops that use server-grade parts, unless you consider SSD's to be server-grade(?). However, there is one "Pro" feature that, in my opinion, is blatantly lacking from the 'Books, and that is a workstation-class graphics card like a FireGL or a Quadro. Other Pro--Business-class, if you like--features that are missing would be Hardware Encryption or Fingerprint Reader/SmartCard Reader.
I think you should be quoting someone else. You're arguing with me about what IS "Pro", I was replying to someone else's post that's claiming that his 15" IS pro and the 13" AIN'T. I'm trying to explain why his 15" isn't any more "Pro" than the 13". You are I are arguing the same point.
Mac professionals are generally graphics/media/design people using Photoshop, Final Cut, Garage Band, etc., so a "workstation" GPU is unnecessary.
I've had a few PC notebooks with fingerprint readers and simply never bothered with them. I wonder how many professional graphics people care about fingerprint readers.
Some of the snobbish condescension towards the 13" as not being a "Pro" machine is amusing. These critics have clearly bought too much into Apple marketing. Anything that professional people can use can be labelled a "Pro" machine. Since the 13" is now a capable Final Cut laptop (via external monitor) and has FW, it is a "Pro" model to many people. Heck, I've known some graphic artists and photographers who use the plastic MacBook as their main computer (connected to an external LCD for serious use, obviously).
Mac + Professional doesn't always mean graphic artist or musician. I know you said generally, but it's still a very narrow-minded view. One of the main benefits of Snow Leopard is the ability to offload CPU cycles to the GPU, so you will be able to leverage higher-end workstation cards.
Architects, engineers and scientists are professionals too, you know. And there are those of us who do 3D-intensive work that would benefit from something a little more powerful than a 512MB 9600M. And we'd appreciate something that's at least a little bit portable. The only thing machine that offers workstation-level graphics is the Mac Pro and Apple doesn't even seem that interested in supporting the Quadro in it. My point was that the FireGL and Quadro are pro cards, and the GeForce/Radeon are not (from more than a simple performance standpoint).
In any case, you can thank ATI and nVidia for the work they did for their pro cards when you're enjoying OpenCL acceleration (on your 9400/9600M, no less) in Snow Leopard. They pioneered the General Purpose GPU with languages like CUDA.
Once again professional doesn't always mean graphic artist or musician. There is a whole business world outside of the "creative types" that would love to use Mac, but can't because of the lack of some of these business-critical features. Security is a big deal to some corporations to the extent that camera phones aren't even allowed in the facility.
Of course there are other types of "professionals" out there. My point is that Mac users are generally not those types. How many architects and engineers actually use OS X? These folks need Autocad and 3D programs not available on OS X at all, so for Apple to target them, it would need these apps. You are applying a Windows standard to Macs.
In any event, the lower-end Quadro models are slower than the 9600m. Even the 9400m beats the weaker Quadros.
In any event, the lower-end Quadro models are slower than the 9600m. Even the 9400m beats the weaker Quadros.
I am a professional aka I have a job that requires a computer. That computer I chose to be a mac. For the work I do (database engineering, reports, statistical analysis and data mining) a more powerfull GPU is useless. Being able to spend 2 hours in the server room and then attend a meeting and then go to the library without worrying about running out of battery is important though. And its one of the main reasons I switched to Macs.
I would still buy the computer if it was called Barbie Book Cult if it had the same design and packed the same futures. If you need a computer to tell you you're a Pro and your paycheck doesn't remind you so every 1st of the month then you're doing something wrong.
I would still buy the computer if it was called Barbie Book Cult if it had the same design and packed the same futures. If you need a computer to tell you you're a Pro and your paycheck doesn't remind you so every 1st of the month then you're doing something wrong.
Ah, I have fond memories of handing over my treo 650 to security every morning so they could tape over the camera with tamper evident tape. Couldn't take it in at all if I forgot my badge that day.
thankfully, I could have my mac because the computers were absolutely prohibited to leave the building, so no laptops for us.
applebook, I would love to be completely reliant on OS X (assuming I'm still doing CAD / renderings when I finally get a Mac), and I'm sure many other Architects and engineers would also love not to have to dual boot or carry dual machines. It's a chicken and egg problem, really. Apple doesn't use high-end workstation graphics cards because there's little software to take advantage of it, and the programs aren't written because there's no (video) hardware support. Hopefully Autodesk releases AutoCAD and 3ds for the Mac. It's supposedly coming, and there will be much rejoicing (yay).
Finally, with regards to speed vs. GeForce computers, yes, some of the Quadros are even slower than their GeForce counterparts. And I think the top-end GeForce cards can push more pixels than the Quadro. But the Quadro has way better support and better drivers. It strives for accuracy rather than speed, which is what a professional cares about (one who drops 1k+ on a single graphics card, anyway).
In any case, I think we've gotten way off topic here. I didn't mean for this to get this deep. I was just thinking about what I would consider to be "Pro"/Business outside of processor speed, screen size and RAM, which is all that we used to be able to go by. Ultimately, I know that several people would love to see a high-end workstation card in the MacBook Pro, but I doubt we will ever see it.
You guys take care. I'm out.
Finally, with regards to speed vs. GeForce computers, yes, some of the Quadros are even slower than their GeForce counterparts. And I think the top-end GeForce cards can push more pixels than the Quadro. But the Quadro has way better support and better drivers. It strives for accuracy rather than speed, which is what a professional cares about (one who drops 1k+ on a single graphics card, anyway).
In any case, I think we've gotten way off topic here. I didn't mean for this to get this deep. I was just thinking about what I would consider to be "Pro"/Business outside of processor speed, screen size and RAM, which is all that we used to be able to go by. Ultimately, I know that several people would love to see a high-end workstation card in the MacBook Pro, but I doubt we will ever see it.
You guys take care. I'm out.
I really like the 2.53GHz model, but extremely reluctant to buy it because there is no option for a better video solution than the integrated 9400M. The 15" models with the 9600GT are out of my price range, as working IT in academia for me means living a rather modest lifestyle.
I been wrestling the though of a refurbed late-2008 15" MBP with a dedicated GPU, but of course Apple needed to handicap them by hard coding in a 4GB ram limit.
I like doing a lot of work with VMs, Photoshop, encoding, and some light gaming. I'm also going to begin working towards my Master's in Computer Science in the fall.
It seems that my choice is giving up gaming and a GPU in order to be able to get a new Mac, getting a refurb with very limited future upgrade options, or going back to Windows and getting a machine that has the hardware I need.
I been wrestling the though of a refurbed late-2008 15" MBP with a dedicated GPU, but of course Apple needed to handicap them by hard coding in a 4GB ram limit.
I like doing a lot of work with VMs, Photoshop, encoding, and some light gaming. I'm also going to begin working towards my Master's in Computer Science in the fall.
It seems that my choice is giving up gaming and a GPU in order to be able to get a new Mac, getting a refurb with very limited future upgrade options, or going back to Windows and getting a machine that has the hardware I need.
I think that the 12" Powerbook G4 was one of the best computers Apple (Or anyone?) has ever made. Very small, very powerful (for it's time), and just a rock solid machine. I work for a University IT department and I see people clinging onto 12" Pb G4s all the time.
I think that the 13" pro is finally something that is still "high end" but small and portable. I personally got the 15" because it's going to be my main computer (my G4 is just a backup machine at this point, it's showing it's age). I luckily was able to get it with a removable battery though, that's my biggest grip with the new machines.
Also the unibody Macbooks didn't have FW, It's been said on here already, but that's a big issue if you've got any other macs and/or FW accessories.
@GodWhomIsMike: I was in the same situation, I went with the 2.53GHz last gen with the 512MB video card. I really think 4GB is going to be fine, and having the 512MB is great for HD video editing and gaming.
Could the 4GB limit be upped to 8GB with a firmware update though?
I think that the 13" pro is finally something that is still "high end" but small and portable. I personally got the 15" because it's going to be my main computer (my G4 is just a backup machine at this point, it's showing it's age). I luckily was able to get it with a removable battery though, that's my biggest grip with the new machines.
Also the unibody Macbooks didn't have FW, It's been said on here already, but that's a big issue if you've got any other macs and/or FW accessories.
@GodWhomIsMike: I was in the same situation, I went with the 2.53GHz last gen with the 512MB video card. I really think 4GB is going to be fine, and having the 512MB is great for HD video editing and gaming.
Could the 4GB limit be upped to 8GB with a firmware update though?
When the 13" alu/UB-Macbook was first introduced, I thought "hmm, that just might be my next laptop". Now that the 13" got the Pro treatment, which to me was the Firewire, better screen and the battery stolen from the 17" MBP, it was a pretty perfect deal. The price wasn't much of an issue, the form factor was way more important. Yes, I admit, a 9600M GT option would've been a nice touch, but that's what I have my desktop for.
I just hope all those poor misguided souls from YouTube comments and other "quality" areas of the Internet crying "where did the aluminium Macbook go? X(" can bring their heads around to the fact that the 13" UB-Macbook became the 13" MBP.
I just hope all those poor misguided souls from YouTube comments and other "quality" areas of the Internet crying "where did the aluminium Macbook go? X(" can bring their heads around to the fact that the 13" UB-Macbook became the 13" MBP.
Those can take up to 6Gb. Anyway, most of us will rarely ever use over 4Gb on these machines.
For people that need the extra real estate (like myself) and people that need the more powerful video gpu (like myself) it makes the 15" alot more "Pro" than the 13". I didnt say the 13" isnt Pro for some people, I just said for my needs I dont consider it a Pro machine.
I just got me a PowerBook 12" and after using it for a few days I realize that it is by far, matte screen, bigger height vs the widescreen, edge to edge great keyboard, form and mobility factor the best portable computer, ever, bar none.
I d go for the air or the 15" matte when there is one I really don't like the13"'mbp.
I d go for the air or the 15" matte when there is one I really don't like the13"'mbp.