2012 13" MBP @ 1280x800... are you kidding me?!?!

KohPhiPhi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 9, 2011
763
194
I cannot believe they've left the 2012 13" MBP at the very outdated 1280x800 resolution AGAIN !!!! I mean, not even a pesky upgrade to MBA-standard 1400x900.

For the love of God... 1280x800 was the standard in 2006, and we're in 2012 !!!

That was the only reason as of why I didnt buy the 2011 MBP 13", and it will be AGAIN the only reason as of why I wont buy the 2012 MBP 13".

Am I the only one who thinks that Apple has made a huge mistake here?

Man, I so wish the Asus Zenbook was OSX-enabled... They'd get my money right away.
 

heisenberg123

macrumors 603
Oct 31, 2010
6,497
9
Hamilton, Ontario
I cannot believe they've left the 2012 13" MBP at the very outdated 1280x800 resolution AGAIN !!!! I mean, not even a pesky upgrade to MBA-standard 1400x900.

For the love of God... 1280x800 is 2006'ish, and we're in 2012 !!!

That was the only reason as of why I didnt buy the 2011 MBP 13", and it will be AGAIN the only reason as of why I wont buy the 2012 MBP 13".

Am I the only one who thinks that Apple has made a huge mistake here?
Probably in hopes more get the retina version
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
That's because it's pretty obvious that the 13" and 15" 'classic' Macbook Pros are just a temporary holdover. I expect a 13" retina Macbook Pro within a year, along with the quiet discontinuation of the old 13" and 15" models in one to two years.
 

spongerabbit

macrumors newbie
Apr 21, 2012
2
0
I cannot believe they've left the 2012 13" MBP at the very outdated 1280x800 resolution AGAIN !!!! I mean, not even a pesky upgrade to MBA-standard 1400x900.

For the love of God... 1280x800 was the standard in 2006, and we're in 2012 !!!

That was the only reason as of why I didnt buy the 2011 MBP 13", and it will be AGAIN the only reason as of why I wont buy the 2012 MBP 13".

Am I the only one who thinks that Apple has made a huge mistake here?

Man, I so wish the Asus Zenbook was OSX-enabled... They'd get my money right away.
Agreed. Ditched the plan to wait anymore for the 13 incher after the specs leaked and got myself the hp dv6 with 1920x1080 resolution. Saved a few hundred bucks as a results.

The best thing that it comes with a discrete gpu lol
 

heisenberg123

macrumors 603
Oct 31, 2010
6,497
9
Hamilton, Ontario
That's because it's pretty obvious that the 13" and 15" 'classic' Macbook Pros are just a temporary holdover. I expect a 13" retina Macbook Pro within a year, along with the quiet discontinuation of the old 13" and 15" models in one to two years.
This is a better answer to what I was trying to say
 

KohPhiPhi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 9, 2011
763
194
Probably in hopes more get the retina version
There's not even a retina upgrade available in the 13" at all.

What a disappointing upgrade, for Pete's sake!

----------

That's because it's pretty obvious that the 13" and 15" 'classic' Macbook Pros are just a temporary holdover. I expect a 13" retina Macbook Pro within a year, along with the quiet discontinuation of the old 13" and 15" models in one to two years.
Well, they could have at least offer in the meantime a 1440x900 resolution like the Air offers. I mean, what is the point of offering the Air at a higher resolution than the Pro?!?! what is the logic behind that?!?! :eek:
 

Adamantoise

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2011
892
112
Okay, I know I'm going to be alone on this but ... What's wrong with 1280 by 800 exactly?

It keeps the machine cheap, text and images are crisp enough for me. When using the laptop, I cannot tell where one pixel ends and another begins. Honestly, what is the issue?

Do people just want it updated for the sake of updating? I guess I don't just understand.

If it matters, all my serious work is done on an external monitor.
 

samac92

macrumors 6502a
Feb 18, 2008
537
90
If you'd believed the rumours you wouldn't be disappointed. I expect Apple to release a 2560x1600 later in the year, hence why they would leave the current model at half that resolution.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,548
18
There's not even a retina upgrade available in the 13" at all.

What a disappointing upgrade, for Pete's sake!

----------



Well, they could have at least offer in the meantime a 1440x900 resolution like the Air offers. I mean, what is the point of offering the Air at a higher resolution than the Pro?!?! what is the logic behind that?!?! :eek:
Trying to keep the price down I guess.
 

Adamantoise

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2011
892
112
Well, they could have at least offer in the meantime a 1440x900 resolution like the Air offers. I mean, what is the point of offering the Air at a higher resolution than the Pro?!?! what is the logic behind that?!?! :eek:
Price?

Just because it's called a Pro doesn't mean it's supposed to be the better machine.

The 13" Macbook is perhaps Apple's best selling computer (and cheapest to manufacture after the Mini). It's good business sense to keep it as accessible as possible.

There's a reason they're still in business you know.
 

KohPhiPhi

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 9, 2011
763
194
Price?

Just because it's called a Pro doesn't mean it's supposed to be the better machine.

The 13" Macbook is perhaps Apple's best selling computer (and cheapest to manufacture after the Mini). It's good business sense to keep it as accessible as possible.

There's a reason they're still in business you know.
This is a $1,XXX machine. It's not a cheap laptop. There's absolutely no excuse to offer only a 2006-standard resolution on $1000+ laptop.

I swear to God I don't understand Apple's decision on this one.
 

boomboom2

macrumors regular
Apr 12, 2012
116
0
Okay, I know I'm going to be alone on this but ... What's wrong with 1280 by 800 exactly?

It keeps the machine cheap, text and images are crisp enough for me. When using the laptop, I cannot tell where one pixel ends and another begins. Honestly, what is the issue?

Do people just want it updated for the sake of updating? I guess I don't just understand.

If it matters, all my serious work is done on an external monitor.
Keeps the machine cheap? I don't consider $1200 base price cheap. Im confused why they didn't at least upgrade to the Air's resolution?
 

Apple4Ever&Ever

macrumors newbie
Jun 8, 2012
16
0
It is all about APPLE EXPERIENCE!
Spec is pointless!
Apple have enough cash already, they don't care what you think.
This machine is still 100 times better than any Windows laptop in the world!
 

Suno

macrumors 6502
Dec 12, 2011
252
0
That's because it's pretty obvious that the 13" and 15" 'classic' Macbook Pros are just a temporary holdover. I expect a 13" retina Macbook Pro within a year, along with the quiet discontinuation of the old 13" and 15" models in one to two years.
That sounds logical, but what would they replace the 'classic' MBP's with if they quietly discontinue it over the years?

Right now, a base 'classic' 15" costs $1,799. If they remove that option, then the next cheapest 15" ends up costing $2,200.

People would end up being stuck with one of two choices: Buy an unsatisfactory screen size 13" or go premium and pay several hundred dollars more for a retina 15" (when they might not even need retina).

I guess I'm basically just defending my own position here because that's the position that I'm in. I don't quite need the 15" retina (certainly not willing to pay the premium for it), but I need something more then a 13" (even if it was retina).
 

heisenberg123

macrumors 603
Oct 31, 2010
6,497
9
Hamilton, Ontario
That sounds logical, but what would they replace the 'classic' MBP's with if they quietly discontinue it over the years?

Right now, a base 'classic' 15" costs $1,799. If they remove that option, then the next cheapest 15" ends up costing $2,200.

People would end up being stuck with one of two choices: Buy an unsatisfactory screen size 13" or go premium and pay several hundred dollars more for a retina 15" (when they might not even need retina).

I guess I'm basically just defending my own position here because that's the position that I'm in. I don't quite need the 15" retina (certainly not willing to pay the premium for it), but I need something more then a 13" (even if it was retina).
Base retina will be 1799 by then
 

pgiguere1

macrumors 68020
May 28, 2009
2,157
1,082
Montreal, Canada
For the love of God... 1280x800 was the standard in 2006, and we're in 2012 !!!
What standard? The most common resolution/size combo in PC laptops sold right now is 1366x768/15". The PPI is worse than the 13" MBP and color accuracy is generally worse as well.

If you really want a computer from 2012, grab a MBA or Retina MBP. The current 13" MBP will surely be discontinued before Apple updates its screen.
 

Adamantoise

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2011
892
112
This is a $1,XXX machine. It's not a cheap laptop. There's absolutely no excuse to offer only a 2006-standard resolution on $1000+ laptop.

I swear to God I don't understand Apple's decision on this one.
Well then, you could always buy another laptop that offers you more resolution for less money.

You have a choice as a customer you know, no one is making you buy Apple.

Fact of the matter is the 13" Pro is the cheapest Apple laptop today ... Until they can source a higher resolution panel for the same price as they currently source the 1280 by 800 ... Chances are they won't be risking their profit margin.

----------

Keeps the machine cheap? I don't consider $1200 base price cheap. Im confused why they didn't at least upgrade to the Air's resolution?
I won't pretend to know, but I know they have their reasons. Would you prefer an upgrade to the panel at the expense of the cost increasing?
 

grrrz

macrumors member
Jan 31, 2012
91
2
retina is still too expensive to be standard, they didn't release 13" retina (yet?), so they spend all their energy on the new deluxe macbook air, and just switch the processor to refresh the old models. so outdated resolution meets expansive deluxe macbook air with retina (or deluxe Ipad with keyboard)
 

Mizzou02RS

macrumors member
Sep 13, 2005
83
0
Okay, I know I'm going to be alone on this but ... What's wrong with 1280 by 800 exactly?

It keeps the machine cheap, text and images are crisp enough for me. When using the laptop, I cannot tell where one pixel ends and another begins. Honestly, what is the issue?

Do people just want it updated for the sake of updating? I guess I don't just understand.

If it matters, all my serious work is done on an external monitor.
You're not alone. I have no problems with the resolution of the 13" MBP. It's the same as my current MacBook and I have zero issues with it at all.

Retina is nice, but I can live without it. Matter of fact, I just bought a high-end 13" MBP this afternoon and I couldn't be happier.
 

iMusings

macrumors member
Feb 22, 2009
58
0
Okay, I know I'm going to be alone on this but ... What's wrong with 1280 by 800 exactly?

It keeps the machine cheap, text and images are crisp enough for me. When using the laptop, I cannot tell where one pixel ends and another begins. Honestly, what is the issue?

Do people just want it updated for the sake of updating? I guess I don't just understand.

If it matters, all my serious work is done on an external monitor.

Is this a troll post?

A 1280 x 800 screen *may* help to keep the Macbook Pro cheap, but bigger and stronger forces are working against us to push Mac prices higher and higher.

Cheaper PC laptops with higher resolution displays are cheaper than our said 13" MBP. Component prices aren't the only thing that affects final pricing you know, greed on the part of the supplier also does that.
 

Demosthenes X

macrumors 68000
Oct 21, 2008
1,954
4
This is a $1,XXX machine. It's not a cheap laptop. There's absolutely no excuse to offer only a 2006-standard resolution on $1000+ laptop.

I swear to God I don't understand Apple's decision on this one.
Then you don't understand business. The 13" Pro is their best-selling notebook. And I'll wager every penny I own that the vast majority of its buyers don't care about screen resolution, or even know what that means.

So, as a profit-maximizing corporation, why would Apple produce a higher-resolution version that earns them a smaller margin, when they can sell just as many at the current resolution with a better margin?

Look - I'm with you. I want a higher-res 13" as much as anyone else. It would be awesome.

But I fully understand Apple's decision. It makes perfect business sense.
 

Adamantoise

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2011
892
112
Is this a troll post?

A 1280 x 800 screen *may* help to keep the Macbook Pro cheap, but bigger and stronger forces are working against us to push Mac prices higher and higher.

Cheaper PC laptops with higher resolution displays are cheaper than our said 13" MBP. Component prices aren't the only thing that affects final pricing you know, greed on the part of the supplier also does that.
Hey man, I don't have all the answers.

All I know is that screen resolution isn't one of my problems with the 13" Macbook Pro. I honestly, don't see the problem with the screen. Not trolling, maybe I just have lower standards than you do.
 

hcho3

macrumors 68030
May 13, 2010
2,783
0
Not sure what the problem is...
1280X800 resolution is still HD resolution.

1199 dollars is not a terrible price for aluminum construction with Ivy bridge processor + Backlit keyboard.

If you want higher resolution, there is 13 inch MBA and 15 inch retina display MBP...

If you don't like any of them, then wait for next update or choose something else.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.