2010 or 2011?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by akrocker29, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. akrocker29 macrumors member

    akrocker29

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    #1
    As many others did, I waited patiently for the update, and like many I was sorely dissappionted. I've wanted to update from PC to mac for a while, but now I don't know what to do. I want a 13" for it's portability and battery life. I will use it for internet, research, word, and LOTS of music including editing and torrents. I need it to last for 5 years of school. Because of the update, I can get a Refurb13" 2.66GHz for $1019, or the lower end one for $929. Or, I could spring for the new one. Advice?
     
  2. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #2
    Even the low-end $929 model you listed will be more than enough for your elementary needs. The bottlenecks for your intended uses are you and your internet connection.
     
  3. Wehrwolf macrumors 6502

    Wehrwolf

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    #3
    I am just curious, can you explain why you were disappointed with the 13" update? Granted the GPU is lackluster, but the CPU upgrade is substantial. Get a 7200 rpm HDD or SSD, max out the RAM and call it a day. I wouldn't settle for an outdated CPU just to save a couple hundred dollars. You can't upgrade it and you'll regret it later.
     
  4. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #4
    Here's my take on it.

    Do you want your computer to do much gaming? Are you even interested in gaming a little?

    If not, get the new one. Faster processor and from what I've seen at least one person who just got the new one who had a 2010 one remark that is noticeably faster. So faster loading and whatnot and you'll never notice any advantage the 2010 had (save maybe for battery life which the 2010 may or may not have more battery life. But, the 2011's quoted is from a harsher test so it may not be that much worse or even the same as the 2010). Plus more likely the processor will be supported for a longer time since it's new technology and the 2010, while it uses a perfectly good processor for now, has a pretty old tech processor. Plus the advantage of having a thunderbolt connector. It probably won't be any advantage right now cause no peripherals use it yet. But years later you may be glad it has one when it is a lot more supported.

    If you do want to do some moderate gaming, I'd wait and see what benchmarks are saying about how well the new computer's graphics card actually works. It sounds like most people expect it won't game as well but pretty much do everything else fine. So, take that into account.

    I'd say the two possible advantages the 2010 has is the graphics card (there is some debate though that the new graphics card isn't as horrendous as people are making it out to be. I'd wait and see what benchmarks/reviews say) and the battery (but the 2010 was tested under a different battery test so once again, quite possible the 2011 has just as good a battery).
     
  5. akrocker29 thread starter macrumors member

    akrocker29

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    #5
    To be honest, the most frusterating thing was the loss of battery life for a little faster computer. That just doesn't equal out to me. And I don't see the luster of a cord that nothing even has yet (granted, it may become more popular in the future).
     
  6. akrocker29 thread starter macrumors member

    akrocker29

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    #6
    The most gaming I would do is bejeweled... :D
     
  7. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #7
    Well, then I'd get the 2011. I'm with you there on battery life but since they used a different test this time it is quite possible the battery life isn't really that much worse (or even is the same). The 2011 is much more likely to be relevant five years from now than the 2010 basically cause of a much newer processor (the 2010 has the same processor as my 2007 MB, and it's only .4 GHZ faster even. That's actually what annoyed me last year as I knew there were faster speed c2d's, so why use one that's not that much faster than a 3 year old c2d?). And also cause of the thunderbolt connector that you may find you're happy to have (but you're not going to see any advantage this year as they have to start making stuff for it). You did say in your original post you wanted a computer that would last you five years. Well then you do want newer tech that is more likely to still be relevant in five years ;).

    Yeah, I got pissed this morning when I saw 7 hour battery life (to be honest I was kinda hoping they'd say 10 hours with the new tests. I'd love to eventually have a laptop that has a true 10 hour battery. I will admit I haven't found my 2010 to have a true 10 hour, it's more like around 7.5-8 hours). But might be good and wait and see what reviews say about battery life. I'm sure you can still find a 2010 MBP if you wait a little just to see what reviews say about the 2011 and you decide against it.

    For me, the 2010 is a better fit cause I did want some moderate gaming capability. So, now I'm really happy I didn't wait a year (I did think about it as I didn't *need* a computer last year. I just really wanted the unibody design for a few years but last year was the first year the tech specs got good enough for me to justify a new computer).
     
  8. akrocker29 thread starter macrumors member

    akrocker29

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    #8
    Well then I will wait and see how the battery situation pans out, because it is probably my biggest priority, second being the ability to run iTunes, audacity, frostwire and file searchers silmultaniously. and lastly, I would like somewhat good resolution for photos and DVDs.
     

Share This Page