2011 13" MacBook Pro is AWESOME

[1BadMac]

It's a very significant progression from the previous two-gens ('09/'10).

It may not meet the rumor mill expectations (ODD removed, SSD added, 1440x900 res, etc...) I for one do not get my hopes up, as Apple clealry likes to deliniate between product lines. I new the 13" would have some addiitons and some "stays the same".

Intel IGP isn't showing me a drastic decrease for what I do, but the encoding / ripping it at least twice as fast than the '10.

 

[c0l3a5h3r]

This is a highly simplistic view. You've totally ignored the cost of transition, amongst other things. I have all my files in OS X formats. I own a great deal of software i've paid for on the mac, and i've spent a great deal of time writing scripts and programs so things work the way i want them to.

Moving over to another system is not as easy as you make out, the transition of all of these resources costs time and money to the point that i'd be shelling out another £1000 just for new software. Thats excluding the cost of setup, downtime of installation etc etc.

The poster to which you reply is coming from a position implicitly acknowledging this principle. You've fallen into the classic hero assumption:

Just in case you're not familiar with that assumption:

When faced with a river to cross the hero can swim across, or take the bridge. A superficial observer claims the hero can just take the bridge, "vote with your legs" to echo your position above. This does not take into account that the bridge might be a hundred miles upstream.

Yes sure he could take the bridge, but the bridge is so far away that he might as well swim, the bridge is the superficially better option but he's compelled to swim (he's got princesses to save) - thus he must suffer the temporary discomfort.

This is the principle of being locked into a platform and your reply fails to recognise these forces.

You reprimand someone for their lack of insight when you're even more guilty of the same .. never ceases to amaze me.

Finally! Someone who actually thinks! I've heard enough people complaining about the Macbook. Buy or don't buy. Apple doesn't force you to do anything.

 

[orfeas0]

I think I'm going to keep my 2010 13" because it's powerful enough for me and the battery life is a bit better than this year's model.

battery life is the same.

I'm glad the faster processor will help you with your skyping.


Money well spent.

he said that for the facetime HD camera, not the cpu.

 

[smetvid]

I agree with the OP. For the average user, the new 13" MacBook Pro is a far better choice than the previous version.

Has anyone confirmed whether or nor Final Cut Pro will load on the new machines? Apple's specs still say Intel integrated graphics are not supported, but I'm assuming that referred to the older 850 design. Not that I'd recommend a 13" Pro (of either generation) for hard core FCP users, but I'm just curious as to what is technically possible on the Intel HD 3000.

Something I would like to know as well. I also don't think the 13" is a bad machine to use for FCP either. The new base 13" actually beats the 15" and 17" cpu's from the previous generation MBP's. So in terms of processing speed for editing and rendering video the base 13" will be just as good if not better then most previous Macs including my C2D 3.06Ghz iMac. I also currently have the Nvidia 9400 gpu which runs most of Final Cut Studio very well. It is my understanding the Intel 3000 is at least better then the Nvidia 9400 so I'm pretty happy there as well. Motion and Color get a bit slow with complex material but every other application should run perfectly.

I just need to make sure Apple doesn't do something stupid and block out the Intel 3000 GPU just for the heck of it.

 

[Camps23]

I also purchased this laptop and think it's funny that the only ones complaining are the ones not upgrading. I'm finding this machine to be lightning fast compared to my previous laptop. I don't understand if it's not good enough go buy another brand and quit crying. If it's not a good upgrade wait! I'm trying to enjoy people comments and posts and all I read are a bunch of kids complaining about the disappointment. If your a games go buy an Asus. Let the rest of us enjoy our laptops.

 

[Grouchy Bob]

battery life is the same.

So Apple is capable of misleading people? (as in the previous 10 hour embellishment?).

Yeah, right. That makes it all better now.

LOL!

 

[ricky1989]

Here are my reasons for NOT upgrading my 2010 13" MBP to the 2011 13" MBP.

1. No improvement on the screen at all. (Something I stare at a 100% of the time i'm using the laptop)
2. HDD is still the same 5400 RPM.
3. The GPU is worse than the older one.
4. There is supposedly a major redesign for 2012 in the works.
5. Thunderbolt peripherals won't be out till 2012. (At least not any economically priced ones.)
6. As for the CPU, I’m not running any CPU intensive programs on a regular basis.

So from my perspective and needs, the 2011 model isn't worth the hassle of me trying to sell my 2010 and then wait for my 2011 and reinstall everything etc etc...

These are just about all my reasons for not upgrading my 2006 white MacBook....
Just ditch the ODD and stick in a discret graphic card. Apple would made me a VERY happy person. Oh, wait a higher res display too =']

 

[Oetam]

Something I would like to know as well. I also don't think the 13" is a bad machine to use for FCP either. The new base 13" actually beats the 15" and 17" cpu's from the previous generation MBP's. So in terms of processing speed for editing and rendering video the base 13" will be just as good if not better then most previous Macs including my C2D 3.06Ghz iMac. I also currently have the Nvidia 9400 gpu which runs most of Final Cut Studio very well. It is my understanding the Intel 3000 is at least better then the Nvidia 9400 so I'm pretty happy there as well. Motion and Color get a bit slow with complex material but every other application should run perfectly.

I just need to make sure Apple doesn't do something stupid and block out the Intel 3000 GPU just for the heck of it.

It would be great if someone could comfirm FCP works, I already ordered and I assume it will work but still.

 

[macdud]

I did some real life tests today at the apple store comparing side by side the new entry level MBP 13" vs. a MBA 13". Here is what i found:

- opening certain apps is still faster on MBA 13" (itunes, iphoto..)
- safari opens possibly a split second faster on the MBP, its basically instant

now for a stress test, i opened itunes, played an mp3 with visualizer turned on, then open a vimeo video with HD on and full screen:

- MBA started dropping frames on the video, zero hiccups on the MBP

getting more hardcore, i open a new tab in safari and play another vimeo video at the same time, with HD on and full screen:

- MBA is dropping mad frames, still zero hiccups on the MBP

now super hardcore mode, i open a third tab in safari play yet another HD video at the same time, also open iphoto, imovie project & garageband, and play them all together ( sound was muted ):

- MBA vimeo video is basically unwatchable, MBP drops a few frames here and there but is still very watchable


Of course in real life use it's probably rare that one would stress his computer so much, but still this test concludes to me that the MBP 13" is way superior to the MPA 13" even with the so-called inferior graphics of the Intel HD 3000. The MBA is bottlenecked by its slow C2D cpu. The MBA was only superior in opening certain apps where indeed the MBP slow HD is the bottleneck..

(btw, I also performed the same test on a white macbook and it performed worse than even the MBA)

The real MBP downer imo is the screen, the higher res on the MBA gives it a significant better real estate, also the glare on the MBP is horrible due to the glass panel. At screen brightness 1-6 bars on the MBP, it was basically unusable in the store due to so much reflection, where as on the MBA, even at 1 bar i could read a web page fine.

For light use, i'd say the MBA is therefore a better option, but for power users that want a 13" there really isn't any alternative than the MBP atm ..

 

[atrac7]

lol at some of the new MBP 2011 advocates and praising its new core i5/i7. I don't mind it at all, but when some are trying to get on the level of knocking the MBP 2010....

This is a crappy analogy, but it'll work: The whole processor speed game is parallel to the megapixel wars that camera manufacturers go through. It sounds better, it gives users more peace of mind, but what user that plans on getting a 13" computer will do such extensive work on a REGULAR basis to feel the effects of the new speeds? Just like what normal consumer will take advantage of all 18 mega pixels in his camera to blow up a print the size of a billboard? I am talking about realistically speaking. It seems that if an user was so inclined to do such high workload tasks, they would have opted for a 15"/17" computer.

Most users will not be able to take advantage of the new i5/i7 in the 13 inch due to the bottleneck effect.

The CD2 in the older macs may not be the most up to date, but I seriously think that those upgrading their 2010 to the 2011 just for the new core I5 would be better suited in just grabbing an SSD and throwing it in the MBP 2010. The difference (IMO, DAILY BASIS WISE) would be much, much more noticeable. Oh, and you get to keep the 320M.

Put it this way--any NEW user to the MBP or mac world should definitely go out and get the 2011 MBP 13" if they want that portability. I think it's a sick sign of consumerism though for those who feel that ONE YEAR of buying a computer already means their product is outdated. For God's sake, having the newest product is not always the best, and it certainly isn't the most efficient in terms of money, time, hassle of selling "old" computer, etc.

Just my 2 cents. To those who bought the new 2011's, I hope they perform to the best of all expectations.

 

[zippys]

Actually, the battery life is the same. Apple just did more realistic testing than last time.

actually you dont know this yet. They haven't provided the battery life of the previous MBP using the new testing procedure. I have a feeling they are hiding a slightly lower battery life compared the previous MBP with their "new" procedure. It just seems a little too convenient that they left out this info.

 

[Hellhammer]

actually you dont know this yet. They haven't provided the battery life of the previous MBP using the new testing procedure. I have a feeling they are hiding a slightly lower battery life compared the previous MBP with their "new" procedure.

They have. MacBook used to have 10-hour battery but after the release of new MBPs, its battery life was dropped to 7 hours.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook?mco=MTM3NjU3MDM

 

[Invisible Elf]

The thing about the processor being the bottleneck, doesn't that kind of only apply for higher end graphics applications right now? I mean, if I buy a computer I expect to use it for at least 3 years, and during that time pretty much all applications will require faster processor (even the web browsers and office), which the need for faster graphics didn't realy go much up unless you play games etc.

Am I completely wrong?

 

[zippys]

They have. MacBook used to have 10-hour battery but after the release of new MBPs, its battery life was dropped to 7 hours.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook?mco=MTM3NjU3MDM

I think I would rather like to battery length reported by users than by Apple who were reporting 10 hours but now 7 hrs. I'm not saying the older MBP will be 4 hours vs 5 hours with the newer one but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple rounded up the battery life of the older MBP.

 

[zippys]

The thing about the processor being the bottleneck, doesn't that kind of only apply for higher end graphics applications right now? I mean, if I buy a computer I expect to use it for at least 3 years, and during that time pretty much all applications will require faster processor (even the web browsers and office), which the need for faster graphics didn't realy go much up unless you play games etc.

Am I completely wrong?

CPU speed really hasn't been a bottleneck for the last 2 years unless you are running ALOT of processes at once or you're video encoding which the majority of people don't do. The GPU (video card) has been the bottleneck for many applications for the last year or 2.

If you are just a casual user then most applications you use (in the future as well) won't need a faster GPU.

 

[Invisible Elf]

CPU speed really hasn't been a bottleneck for the last 2 years unless you are running ALOT of processes at once or you're video encoding which the majority of people don't do. The GPU (video card) has been the bottleneck for many applications for the last year or 2.

Right thanks, I'm currently running a 4 year old laptop with AMD Turion processor so I don't really know what newer laptops run like...

 

[Hellhammer]

The thing about the processor being the bottleneck, doesn't that kind of only apply for higher end graphics applications right now? I mean, if I buy a computer I expect to use it for at least 3 years, and during that time pretty much all applications will require faster processor (even the web browsers and office), which the need for faster graphics didn't realy go much up unless you play games etc.

Am I completely wrong?

GPU plays a pretty big role with animations and hardware acceleration nowadays. No matter what you buy now, it will be slower than what we will have in 3 years, so paying more for extra speed is not worth it now, unless you need it now.

 

[zippys]

Right thanks, I'm currently running a 4 year old laptop with AMD Turion processor so I don't really know what newer laptops run like...

well, if you are just a casual user then I suggest you get the newer MBP. The new Sandybridge architecture is ALOT better than the older tech. You will definitely notice the difference from what you have now.

 

[dorky24]

I find it amusing how a lot of people who complain and whine are those with the 2010 Macbook Pros. I mean honestly, most people don't upgrade EVERY FREAKING YEAR! MBP's are not cheap!! True, the upgrade from the 2010 isn't drastic, but that's because its only a year old! The core 2 duo is a wonderful piece of machinery, especially since its very stable. Its still reasonably powerful with a long battery life. The i-series are great and powerful, but could use less power usage. The people who would find this upgrade awesome should be those who have the 2009 MBPs and younger. The 9400 and those old c2d processors are nothing compared to the 2011.

In 2012 (provided the world doesn't end ), I hope to see that new revision with the SSD, especially since Lion will have trim support. 2010 users should stop complaining and just wait for the 2011. Most people upgrade their Macbook Pros every 2 to 4 years.

 

[KohPhiPhi]

Here are my reasons for NOT upgrading my 2010 13" MBP to the 2011 13" MBP.

1. No improvement on the screen at all. (Something I stare at a 100% of the time i'm using the laptop)
2. HDD is still the same 5400 RPM.
3. The GPU is worse than the older one.
4. There is supposedly a major redesign for 2012 in the works.
5. Thunderbolt peripherals won't be out till 2012. (At least not any economically priced ones.)
6. As for the CPU, I’m not running any CPU intensive programs on a regular basis.

+1

People fail to realize that NO ONE will cap out the super powerful Sandy Bridge i7 on a 13" laptop that uses a 5400 rpm, a 1280x800 resolution, and the gimp HD3000 GPU: the GPU and the hard drive will bottleneck your work flow WAY before you even get to scratch the i7's full potential.

Here's my question: what type of application can you possibly run that requires an i7 and that wont bottleneck from the 5400 rpm hard drive? or the HD3000? to say nothing that you wont run intensive video encoding applications on a 1280x800 screen...

I've said it before, and I will say it again: pairing a 2011-performing SB i7 with a 2008-performing hard drive, a 2008 screen and 2008-performing GPU is like buying a Ferrari and then putting in a totally worn out set tires on it: it makes no sense as it's not balanced...

I would have rather had an i3 with a SSD and 1440x900 res. It would have been a MUCH more balanced machine and better for all-day use.

 

[Hellhammer]

to say nothing that you wont run intensive video encoding applications on a 1280x800 screen...

Video encoding does not require lots of screen estate. All you got to do is choose the source and all other settings and then click encode and you can minimize it. Could be done with iPhone's screen.

You can always add an SSD on your own if you want to. I'm sure most people actually prefer the 320GB 5400rpm HD instead of 32GB or 64GB SSD.

 

[mac jones]

I did some real life tests today at the apple store comparing side by side the new entry level MBP 13" vs. a MBA 13". Here is what i found:

- opening certain apps is still faster on MBA 13" (itunes, iphoto..)
- safari opens possibly a split second faster on the MBP, its basically instant

now for a stress test, i opened itunes, played an mp3 with visualizer turned on, then open a vimeo video with HD on and full screen:

- MBA started dropping frames on the video, zero hiccups on the MBP

getting more hardcore, i open a new tab in safari and play another vimeo video at the same time, with HD on and full screen:

- MBA is dropping mad frames, still zero hiccups on the MBP

now super hardcore mode, i open a third tab in safari play yet another HD video at the same time, also open iphoto, imovie project & garageband, and play them all together ( sound was muted ):

- MBA vimeo video is basically unwatchable, MBP drops a few frames here and there but is still very watchable


Of course in real life use it's probably rare that one would stress his computer so much, but still this test concludes to me that the MBP 13" is way superior to the MPA 13" even with the so-called inferior graphics of the Intel HD 3000. The MBA is bottlenecked by its slow C2D cpu. The MBA was only superior in opening certain apps where indeed the MBP slow HD is the bottleneck..

(btw, I also performed the same test on a white macbook and it performed worse than even the MBA)

The real MBP downer imo is the screen, the higher res on the MBA gives it a significant better real estate, also the glare on the MBP is horrible due to the glass panel. At screen brightness 1-6 bars on the MBP, it was basically unusable in the store due to so much reflection, where as on the MBA, even at 1 bar i could read a web page fine.

For light use, i'd say the MBA is therefore a better option, but for power users that want a 13" there really isn't any alternative than the MBP atm ..

There's no way i'm unloading the Air I have for one of these. It's not a powerhouse, but it's very comfortable to use. If you need power, best to have two machines if you can afford this.

But all of these new machines seem to be a substantial upgrade in performance.

note: It's perhaps worth noting this is really just a speed bump. A HUGE one

 

[TomCondon]

Yeah, I can't wait to get it, I just wish ignorant people would stop saying the battery life is worse!

Should be a sexy upgrade from my 2009 advent, which doesnt deserve the title of a laptop

 

[orfeas0]

LOL! Still AWESOME?

The crap some of you people try to rationalize.

It's amazing all the threads cropping up that have a certain tone of, "I'm trying to convince myself" the MBP13 ain't half bad. Another week and folks will be singing praises to Apple for the IGP and building shrines for Sunday Intel worship.

Anyone is an idiot for paying this kind of money for such a lackluster spec bump. How many freaking CPU cycles do you need these days for facebook, iTunes, iWork and iPorn.

Like a drunken sailor on pay day with loads of cash, Apple continues to stagger backwards and sideways.

dont buy a mac then. your choice. but the 2011 mbp models are really good, no matter what you think. what the hell are people complaining about? apple makes good computers for quite high prices, but the software of mac OSX and the hardware of them is worth it IMO.
just, if you dont like it dont buy it. go buy a windows, its your choice.

 

[eaf7s]

lol at some of the new MBP 2011 advocates and praising its new core i5/i7. I don't mind it at all, but when some are trying to get on the level of knocking the MBP 2010....

This is a crappy analogy, but it'll work: The whole processor speed game is parallel to the megapixel wars that camera manufacturers go through. It sounds better, it gives users more peace of mind, but what user that plans on getting a 13" computer will do such extensive work on a REGULAR basis to feel the effects of the new speeds? Just like what normal consumer will take advantage of all 18 mega pixels in his camera to blow up a print the size of a billboard? I am talking about realistically speaking. It seems that if an user was so inclined to do such high workload tasks, they would have opted for a 15"/17" computer.

Most users will not be able to take advantage of the new i5/i7 in the 13 inch due to the bottleneck effect.

The CD2 in the older macs may not be the most up to date, but I seriously think that those upgrading their 2010 to the 2011 just for the new core I5 would be better suited in just grabbing an SSD and throwing it in the MBP 2010. The difference (IMO, DAILY BASIS WISE) would be much, much more noticeable. Oh, and you get to keep the 320M.

Put it this way--any NEW user to the MBP or mac world should definitely go out and get the 2011 MBP 13" if they want that portability. I think it's a sick sign of consumerism though for those who feel that ONE YEAR of buying a computer already means their product is outdated. For God's sake, having the newest product is not always the best, and it certainly isn't the most efficient in terms of money, time, hassle of selling "old" computer, etc.

Just my 2 cents. To those who bought the new 2011's, I hope they perform to the best of all expectations.

I definitely see where you're coming from, but I think that there are plenty of users in a similar situation to myself where we just need the portability and the power. I've had a 15" for years and loved it but it was just too bulky--I travel 5-8 times a year back and forth between the UK & US and travel with my laptop almost daily. Most of that is light word processing-esque usage. However, at home I have to hunker down for serious music production.

While a dual-core more than suits my needs, I went with i7 for length of life/resale/etc. Adding 8gb RAM, 64gb SSD (or 128, haven't decided yet) & opti-baying the 750 aftermarket. I'll set up a workstation at home with large hd ex mon & wireless keyboard & mouse for a pretty negligible cost in the scheme of things (compared to trying to lug around 15 or 17"). Boom. Getting it both ways.