Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

13" MBP threads faded FAST since the update ...

entatlrg

entatlrg

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
3,385
6
Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
Before the recent update to the MBP's the 13" MBP was a hot topic of discussion here, now it's quiet.

Focus seems to have gone to the 15" MBP's.

I wonder why, people not happy about the update to the 13" MBP? It's not 'that' bad ... or is the new 15" so well spec'd now that people want it regardless.

13" MBP was Apple's best selling computer in recent months, I wonder if the 15" will end up back on top now?
 
I'm still going to get the 13" MBP (Base) just because I'm only going to use it as a personal/casual laptop and I don't do much graphic work and I don't need the processor. Sure it'd be nice to have, but the price has put me off slightly. I'd rather spend the same amount of money on a 13" base+HDD+an iPad then just the base 15" MBP.
 
I am loving my new 13 inch MBP. It is base model. I think the 15 inch models are getting most of the attention simply because they got the new core I5 and I7 processors and the 13 inch MBP's did not. Not a major problem for me, as I did not need an extremely robust MBP, since I already have an I5 IMAC 27 inch that I use as my primary computer at home.
 
I purchased a 13" base model as well. I chose it because it's the most portable and has the battery life. Also, the newer models seem to be having some issues with relying on the discrete graphics for the most ridiculous things. I'm perfectly content with the C2D and integrated graphics in this computer. It continues to impress me and I absolutely love it. So much so that I'm trying to talk my wife into giving up her new Acer w/i3 for a white macbook.
 
I understand the reasoning etc for putting C2Ds in the 13s; regardless I wouldn't be able to justify spending the kinda money Apple is asking on a new machine that uses a C2D (Call me crazy, I just can't justify it). Only way I could see me doing it would be if I absolutely needed the 13" form factor; the extra battery life isn't a seller for me.
 
Other than being a little slower than the i5, the new 13"s are great computers. The significantly improved 320M GPU is great. We don't have to mess with the GPU-switching "training wheels" that the 15" and 17" are going through (330M for YouTube, really? It stays on until you close FireFox, really?). The battery life I have been getting is beastly. I would like to see more 13" threads, though.
 
saschke said:
These machines are awesome.
Click to expand...

sure they are, right up to the point where apples pulls a PPC on us and says "hey for OSX 10.7 we decided to drop C2D support and stick to iX only" and we'd be running 10.6.2 for another 3 years or so. Or when PS CS6 comes around and just supports hyperthreaded cpu's or whatever.

it is fast enough *now* but i fear it won't last. It isn't really an extremely recent C2D at that.

that said i just complain a lot since i really would have liked to get me one :D
 
Im going for the 13" due to portability factors. I honestly just think the 15" is too big/heavy. And the core 2 is still lightning fast.
 
King Apple said:
Im going for the 13" due to portability factors. I honestly just think the 15" is too big/heavy. And the core 2 is still lightning fast.
Click to expand...

i agree with you. the 13" really is the perfect size. it would've been my first choice. big enough not to be a netbook and small enough to use in bed/on the couch/on vacation. the 15" is also too chunky to carry around, although i am trying to convince myself the opposite these days, because otherwise it is great with the high res and the i5.

if the 13" had 1400x900 and an i5 i would already be typing this on it :)
 
stefan1975 said:
sure they are, right up to the point where apples pulls a PPC on us and says "hey for OSX 10.7 we decided to drop C2D support and stick to iX only" and we'd be running 10.6.2 for another 3 years or so. Or when PS CS6 comes around and just supports hyperthreaded cpu's or whatever.

it is fast enough *now* but i fear it won't last. It isn't really an extremely recent C2D at that.

that said i just complain a lot since i really would have liked to get me one :D
Click to expand...

Huh? The C2D and Core i-series CPUs run the same code. This is nothing like PPC. Both are 64-bit capable CPUs and nothing is going to change to one that doesn't change for the other.
 
I think the threads faded because not much happened with the 13". What they did with the 13" could have been done without even an announcement as Apple has done before- speed bumps aren't unexpected or particularly exciting to people who are watching and waiting for something bigger.

The 15" got two exciting features: the i5 and the option for higher res. The i5 wasn't unexpected but at least we could breathe a collective sigh of relief that the 15" wasn't still stuck with C2D. The higher res screen option gives hope to those who want higher res with the 13".

All laptops got refreshed graphics but this is still a mixed bag. The good news is that the graphics are better now than before. However, there is still no discrete gpu on the 13", and for a pro notebook costing $1,200, this is sort of expected. The auto switching on the 15" and 17" sounds great from a marketing perspective but just about everyone who pays attention to their battery life would like the option to simply disable the discrete gpu. I think Apple will add this option to the system prefs in the future, but very, very begrudgingly.
 
I gotta say, before the announcement, my original plan was to get a new 13" MBP. After having a 15 inch for so long, and in some situations temporarily "trading" for a loaner 13" black macbook when small size and portability were more important, I figured a 13" MBP would be perfect.

And it probably would've been. I still wanted to get one after the specs came out and I saw that they were C2Ds. But then, I also kept thinking that if I bought this, I would want to keep it for a couple years, and it would make more sense to spend a little more for the newer tech than cheap out and maybe regret it later.

So, I went for the 15 inch.

There's nothing wrong with the 13 inchers. It's just the 15 and 17 inch models got the better upgrade.

And also, yeah, the threads might've faded because there's nothing new to go wrong or to question on the 13 inch models. They're a known quantity and pretty straightforward. The i5 and i7's though, everyone's asking about how much of a speed bump there is on the i7, how much heat they put out, and what about the dual graphics chipsets.
 
kasakka said:
The happy customers are often the least vocal on forums. ;)
Click to expand...

This.

Seriously. I got my 13" and it's pretty sweet fast. And I do have some basis for comparison as my primary machine is an octo-core Mac Pro Nehalem. The 13" machine is a wonderful little guy and is just the size where I'm willing to take it everywhere I go. A 15" or 17" would be too big and heavy for that purpose. The speed of the CPU, even if it is a C2D, and the new graphics are plenty fast for anything I'm going to do on a mobile system. :cool:
 
Scottsdale said:
Huh? The C2D and Core i-series CPUs run the same code. This is nothing like PPC. Both are 64-bit capable CPUs and nothing is going to change to one that doesn't change for the other.
Click to expand...

i *know* that they are both mostly the same architecture running the same code and that it is different from the PPC situation. I didn't mean it literally, just that it is a 2007 CPU and not even the latest and greatest at that and that chances are that in 3-4 years stuff is out that can't be run on this little nice laptop.

i love its size and its design, the OS, the backlit keyboard, the build quality, the color depth of the LED, but i cant justify paying $1500 for the base 2.4 C2D ..... i think.
 
stefan1975 said:
i *know* that they are both mostly the same architecture running the same code and that it is different from the PPC situation. I didn't mean it literally, just that it is a 2007 CPU and not even the latest and greatest at that and that chances are that in 3-4 years stuff is out that can't be run on this little nice laptop.

i love its size and its design, the OS, the backlit keyboard, the build quality, the color depth of the LED, but i cant justify paying $1500 for the base 2.4 C2D ..... i think.
Click to expand...

First of all...$1500? That would be base + some upgrades not base. I got my 13" brand new for under $1100. If/When they put iX processors in the 13" it'll be a minor speed increase. Nothing more. It won't drastically change what you can do with the computer. I'm willing to be that 3 years from now my computer will still be perfectly capable of running the latest OS and software.

On a side note, these machines hold their value very very well. So you could get a 13" now and have something that blows your mind (compared to your eee, trust me I had been using a 1000HE for the last two months) NOW and maybe 6 mos to a year from now if you still want something different then eBay it and upgrade. At least you won't be miserable using a netbook for that time period (and if you aren't miserable using a netbook then holding out for more than a C2D is pretty pointless).
 
Another vote for 13"!! It's a trade-off with size comes a faster CPU. The 13" is more than capable of running every app that the 15" and 17" can run, with better mobility and battery to boot!

I think too much is being made of the CPU, sure its important, but how many apps can take full advantage of the i5's and i7's today? or more importantly how many NEED to?
 
entatlrg said:
I wonder why, people not happy about the update to the 13" MBP? It's not 'that' bad ... or is the new 15" so well spec'd now that people want it regardless.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because one uses a state of the art CPU, advanced graphics switching technology, has new high res display options, and is all around awesome... whereas the other one is pretty much the same as the old version and less exciting. :confused:
 
CPUs are overrated...
Put a fast SSD in a 13" and it will feel faster than most of the 15" (since most people don't go for SSD options).
Sure in benchmarks will be still slower and will take XX more seconds/miutes to encode something...but who cares...
 
spaceballl said:
Maybe it's because one uses a state of the art CPU, advanced graphics switching technology, has new high res display options, and is all around awesome... whereas the other one is pretty much the same as the old version and less exciting. :confused:
Click to expand...

That "advanced graphics switching technology" is actually one of the biggest reasons that I didn't even consider the 15". I thought about it for a minute because I, like others, wanted the i5 CPU. But after reading about the headaches with the graphics switching the decision to stick with the more portable system was an easy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back