Are you talking about watching movies! It is seriously not Pro to need an optical drive to accomplish this.
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.
Another Look at Apple's Core 2 Duo Choice for New 13-Inch MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you talking about watching movies! It is seriously not Pro to need an optical drive to accomplish this.
I'll bet this Intel/Nvidia ordeal really pisses Steve Jobs off. Knowing what we know about him, he probably really hates it when his vision is in anyways held back because of a reliance on other companies and their politics. In fact, I have a feeling Jobs hates relying on another company for anything.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple start making everything they possibly can themselves. Buying AMD/ATI wouldn't surprise me at all. Buying Pixelmator or making a Photoshop app wouldn't surprise me. I really see them breaking every dependency on other companies that they can.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple start making everything they possibly can themselves. Buying AMD/ATI wouldn't surprise me at all. Buying Pixelmator or making a Photoshop app wouldn't surprise me. I really see them breaking every dependency on other companies that they can.
I don't get that. The MacBook Pro that we are discussing here has a discrete GPU. And why the hell would you want a 5 hour battery that can be replaced instead of a ten hour battery?
I'd rather have a computer that doesn't need toilet training. One that doesn't force Windows on me. One that is half the price of that Vaio. One with a battery that lasts twice as long.
I have a 3 hour lab and a 2 hour class right after. Then a 30 min break and another hour and fifteen minute class.
I appreciate the battery life.
To solve the "problem" of C2D, I got a 15" i7. 8 hours is fine for me.
I don't get that. The MacBook Pro that we are discussing here has a discrete GPU. And why the hell would you want a 5 hour battery that can be replaced instead of a ten hour battery?
The 13'' only has an integrated GPU. Probably the most powerfull integrated GPU but still not as powerfull as a discrete GPU and it forces Apple to stick with C2D.
Of course, if they can put in a 10 hr+ battery and Intel i.. with discrete gfx, even better....
Christian
So, Jobs is full of crap, as usual.
His explanation was not about space constraints, or about a licensing dispute, but "killer graphics" over "very a very small CPU speed increase."
So does this mean that the Core i processors used in the 15" and 17" Mac Books Pro provide "very a very small CPU speed increase," or is it just BS, like the excuses for not allowing Flash on the iPad?
I suppose next we'll be hearing from Jobs how Intel was being lazy.....
His explanation was not about space constraints, or about a licensing dispute, but "killer graphics" over "very a very small CPU speed increase."
So does this mean that the Core i processors used in the 15" and 17" Mac Books Pro provide "very a very small CPU speed increase," or is it just BS, like the excuses for not allowing Flash on the iPad?
I suppose next we'll be hearing from Jobs how Intel was being lazy.....
Sucks for anyone wanting a 13" Mac laptop, but for me, i wouldn't go below a 15" screen anyway. Preferably 17" MacBook Pro for me.
No. There is no integrated graphics, only the discrete graphics. Nothing to switch from.
That Vaio Z costs 2000$, you can buy a bigger, faster Macbook Pro in that amount. Not to mention with double the battery life.
There really was no option wasn't there?
Having read through the thread and the links in it, and put a silly double-negative in the subject box which I now cannot edit to change, the "options" on the table were:
1) Go with the new Intel processor and use Intel integrated graphics
- not a real option as this is a noticeable step backwards in terms of graphics performance
2) Go with a new Intel processor and use discreet graphics by another manufacturer
- not a real option because of the space and heat constraints of a 13-inch aluminium case
- optical drives are an essential part of laptops to some individuals, particularly those who do not want to fuss around with an extra peripheral or do not have access to reliable high-speed internet when things should "just work" on what is an expensive computer
- the battery has to be as long-lasting as possible because it is not user-replaceable - those who travel with their laptop do not always have the opportunity to recharge
3) Bump up the existing Intel processors and maintain current graphics
- nothing is lost in terms of performance over the previous model, therefore we have a true upgrade
So, no complaints really, though a price drop to reflect the use of older technology would have been nice. As for me, my '07 Blackbook works just fine, including the venerable removable battery. I still get just under 3 hours under normal usage conditions, 941 cycles later...
Having read through the thread and the links in it, and put a silly double-negative in the subject box which I now cannot edit to change, the "options" on the table were:
1) Go with the new Intel processor and use Intel integrated graphics
- not a real option as this is a noticeable step backwards in terms of graphics performance
2) Go with a new Intel processor and use discreet graphics by another manufacturer
- not a real option because of the space and heat constraints of a 13-inch aluminium case
- optical drives are an essential part of laptops to some individuals, particularly those who do not want to fuss around with an extra peripheral or do not have access to reliable high-speed internet when things should "just work" on what is an expensive computer
- the battery has to be as long-lasting as possible because it is not user-replaceable - those who travel with their laptop do not always have the opportunity to recharge
3) Bump up the existing Intel processors and maintain current graphics
- nothing is lost in terms of performance over the previous model, therefore we have a true upgrade
So, no complaints really, though a price drop to reflect the use of older technology would have been nice. As for me, my '07 Blackbook works just fine, including the venerable removable battery. I still get just under 3 hours under normal usage conditions, 941 cycles later...
bass-ackwards
Fix:
Fix:
No. There is no discrete graphics, only the integrated graphics. Nothing to switch from.
I think they could add a higher end core 2 duo. Does the 2.4 GHz cpu use less power/has a less TDP than lets say a 2.8 GHz core 2 duo OR even a 3.06GHz core 2 duo?
Maybe for you. But I suspect that Apple knows more about computer design than you do.
As it is, there were 3 choices:
1. Use C2D with nVidia graphics. 10 hr battery life, much faster graphics than previous version, faster CPU than previous version, bigger HD than previous version, price the same.
2. Use i3 with onboard graphics. Marginally faster CPU than option 1 (not enough difference to be noticed by many people), MUCH slower graphics, similar battery life.
3. Redesign to use i3 with discrete graphics. Greatly increased cost, much greater energy consumption (resulting in greatly reduced battery life). Requires additional cooling, more weight, larger profile. CPU would be infinitesimally faster than #1, graphics same as #1.
Seems to me that Apple made a very solid decision. They could have marginally increased CPU performance, but only by sacrificing a lot of other things. If you want something different, go ahead and design your own laptops.
Super idea. So instead of alienating the 1% of users who would be able to tell the difference between C2D and i3, they'll alienate the 95% of users who want an optical drive.
Greater energy consumption means more cooling, more weight and shorter battery life. Plus probably slower performance.
It's not an older CPU. They're both still being made. If you mean 'older design', there's some truth to that, but it's completely insignificant for most users. C2D is still a very useful chip. If you want a faster machine, you can buy a 15". But Apple has apparently found that few people who are buying 13" laptops need balls-to-the-wall CPU speed.
I guess Apple should just fire its entire engineering staff and just ask you how to design their next computer.
For most people, the Core 2 Duo is fast enough, the i5 and i7 are fast enough, so the speed difference is zero. When running Flash, the processor speed doesn't make any difference, because Flash uses 100% of one CPU anyway, no matter how fast or slow that CPU is. And one day they will learn how to do multithreading and use 100% of both cores and drain your battery twice as fast
Fix:
No. There is no discrete graphics, only the integrated graphics. Nothing to switch from.
Can't we just define anything that is ten times faster than my GMA 950 as "discrete"
So we can make eggs on out MBPs? If Apple uses AMD, I can guarantee you that the prices won't drop. Apple will just gladly make a larger profit on each machine sold.
Replace macbook air with the 13-in pro
I've been lead to believe the macbook air is among Apple's worst-selling laptops. I can understand that the severe loss of performance just so it could fit in an envelope, not to mention being even more expensive than the 13-in pro model.
What Apple should do is completely redo this design and drop the DVD drive. That does more than free up space, but doesn't limit the dimensions. It might still be good to continue using the 2.5 hard drive, but loosing the optical drive can allow for much more freedom in the dimensions.
My vision is to have the current arrangement of ports + a third USB, dropping the SD card slot for an express card. On the opposite side would have the battery taking up the space of the DVD drive, the hard drive being placed under the right hand rest. The logic board could then take up all the left side, expanding the options for the size of the battery. The power indicator would run along where the DVD slot is currently located.
Final result: Greater performance, more expansion for ports, and/or larger battery.
I've been lead to believe the macbook air is among Apple's worst-selling laptops. I can understand that the severe loss of performance just so it could fit in an envelope, not to mention being even more expensive than the 13-in pro model.
What Apple should do is completely redo this design and drop the DVD drive. That does more than free up space, but doesn't limit the dimensions. It might still be good to continue using the 2.5 hard drive, but loosing the optical drive can allow for much more freedom in the dimensions.
My vision is to have the current arrangement of ports + a third USB, dropping the SD card slot for an express card. On the opposite side would have the battery taking up the space of the DVD drive, the hard drive being placed under the right hand rest. The logic board could then take up all the left side, expanding the options for the size of the battery. The power indicator would run along where the DVD slot is currently located.
Final result: Greater performance, more expansion for ports, and/or larger battery.
Well, this is interesting because I believe Apple is so far behind the graphics game, they may never be able to catch up. We are now 3+ YEARS since Apple has updated the 30-inch desktop display and they still cant get the 285 graphics card to come anywhere near their potential. Apple simply lost their vision in this area. If they ever do get off their lazy ass, just maybe we'll see something in the next YEAR or so. BTW: I've been using Mac's since 1983, and that was back when graphics was a priority for Apple.
And one day they will learn how to do multithreading and use 100% of both cores and drain your battery twice as fast
LMAO
There hasn't been much advances in 30 inch IPS screens in 3 years. And Apple never ever was on top on 3D graphics. Back in 80's what you mean by graphics has nothing to do with todays graphics. Windows will always be on top of 3D graphics because of the amount of games written/sold for windows is nowhere comparable to Macs.
Right now, it's true that Intel mobile CPUs are much better.
But Intel is giving AMD an opening... Intel has made the i3 so unattractive that, basically, AMD only needs to beat (or even just match) the Core 2 Duo -- a years old architecture, to get back in the game at the lower end.