Another Look at Apple's Core 2 Duo Choice for New 13-Inch MacBook Pro

[jegbook]

Unfortunately Apple is kind of neglecting the 13" because they don't make as much money off it. However, I would gladly pay $2000 or more for a 13" if it had the same specs as a larger MBP but in a smaller package. Apple's excuse for not upgrading the 13" (to i5 processors or discrete graphics or giving it an expresscard slot) is that they can't fit everything in and maintain the battery life. The solution is to ditch the optical drive since it is becoming less relevant every day. For as often as I use it, I'd rather buy an external and use the space in the computer for something else. If they could fit discrete graphics, an i5, an expresscard slot (or alternatively USB3, eSATA, or LightPeak), 2 hard drives, and a high res matte display (1440x900 or 1680x1050 or more), that would be the ideal computer for me, and I would pay a lot of money for one.

Apple needs to stop watering down their products to sell to more people, and focus on what real "pro" users want. The macbook is their consumer line.

Unfortunately Apple is kind of neglecting the 13" because they don't make as much money off it. However, I would gladly pay $2000 or more for a 13" if it had the same specs as a larger MBP but in a smaller package. Apple's excuse for not upgrading the 13" (to i5 processors or discrete graphics or giving it an expresscard slot) is that they can't fit everything in and maintain the battery life. The solution is to ditch the optical drive since it is becoming less relevant every day. For as often as I use it, I'd rather buy an external and use the space in the computer for something else. If they could fit discrete graphics, an i5, an expresscard slot (or alternatively USB3, eSATA, or LightPeak), 2 hard drives, and a high res matte display (1440x900 or 1680x1050 or more), that would be the ideal computer for me, and I would pay a lot of money for one.

Apple needs to stop watering down their products to sell to more people, and focus on what real "pro" users want. The macbook is their consumer line.

Indeed, Matt, that would be an impressive computer. However, I can't imagine there would be much of a market for such a beast.

Also, Apple already has an optical-less laptop: the MacBook Air.

With an optical drive and at the least very strong performance, the MBPs (and MB, too, I think) provide an extremely useful computing experience as one's only computer for the vast majority of computer users (yes, speculation on my part).
I think Apple has long shown themselves to make products that fit ~90% of their target audience. And that other 10% definitely feels left out in the cold. (yes, still making up my own numbers)

Apple's sales figures seem to imply that they know how to hit that ~90% very well.

Other than gaming and visual design (static and motion), I'm still missing what it is that people do with their computers that requires so much horsepower.

Does anyone know of any Windows-based ~13" laptops that can provide superior/cutting edge gaming and design performance?

 

[Soordhin]

I was so disappointed about the "upgrade" of the 13'' MBP that i bought myself a Sony Z series and i have to say it is a delight for a truly portable and professional notebook (after cleaning up the windows installation). It weighs a lot less (1,4kg vs 2kg), sports an i5, i7 was an option but that would have meant to opt for the full hd screen too which is imo too much for a 13'' screen. Took it to the apple store to compare it to the 13'' and it beats the apple in everything except the OS. It even is cheaper if you compare a similar set of options on the MBP (SSD, 3 year AppleCare).

But then, the 6 hours battery life is more than sufficient for me, if you need 10 i guess the MBP is worth a try.

 

[0092762]

ROFL, I'd love to find a park bench that weighs less than 7lbs. At this point, I've carried my 17" MBP all over the world. I've even used it on airplanes without any trouble. People forget that the 17" is only 1lb more than the 15" and 2lbs more than the 13" while also giving you the 1920x1200 resolution and a lot more screen space.

Good for you, but >2lbs is a lot extra to carry around in a backpack all day, sure I'm strong enough to do it, but why should I, If I can be more comfortable? Many people like smaller laptops, and I use my 13" hooked up to a 26" 1920x1200 monitor at home. When I travel, I can live without that resolution since I'm not away from home for weeks, months just like most people. Besides the 17" just screams wasted space and doesn't look as tidy and elegant as the 13".

 

[0092762]

I was so disappointed about the "upgrade" of the 13'' MBP that i bought myself a Sony Z series and i have to say it is a delight for a truly portable and professional notebook (after cleaning up the windows installation). It weighs a lot less (1,4kg vs 2kg), sports an i5, i7 was an option but that would have meant to opt for the full hd screen too which is imo too much for a 13'' screen. Took it to the apple store to compare it to the 13'' and it beats the apple in everything except the OS. It even is cheaper if you compare a similar set of options on the MBP (SSD, 3 year AppleCare).

But then, the 6 hours battery life is more than sufficient for me, if you need 10 i guess the MBP is worth a try.

Not to mention you can play HD flash videos with only 20-25% cpu utilization compared to 80% on a Mac. Watching flash videos on the web is a HUGE part of the casual user's daily workload.

 

[John.B]

Some things that I think would be "remarkable" on the MacBook Pro's:

...
- 1080p on 16" and above with IPS (switchable - if possible)
...
- 3x USB 3.0 ports. (or Light Peak of that ever see's the light of day.)

Wishful thinking...

Nobody makes a laptop with an IPS screen. Lenovo did for a while, but I think even they have given up. If you want a svelte laptop then you can't have a thick IPS display.

Also, the Arrandale chipset that has to be used with the i5/i7 CPUs doesn't support USB3. Thank Intel for that little bit of genius.

 

[Yinmay]

The specs of this new 13" MBP should be the MacBook (perhaps with 2GB and slower starting clock speed, and 4gb/faster processor BTO to meet that $1k starting price).

I've been hoping for a laptop with
13" screen
i5 processor
no optical drive
an additional USB port on the right side
discrete graphic card (with an option to turn it off 100% of the time when on battery and on 100% when plugged)

15" is too big when I'm not at home and too small when I am: I just plug it to my external screen.
Basically I don't like having two computers. I need 1 laptop that's powerful enough to function as desktop and small enough to carry around.

I wonder how isolated or widespread my usage and expectations are.

Thanks in advance Apple.

 

[flight]

Nobody makes a laptop with an IPS screen. Lenovo did for a while, but I think even they have given up. If you want a svelte laptop then you can't have a thick IPS display.

I know very little about panel technology, but the iPad seems to retain a slim profile despite its IPS panel. Is it something else? Cost or battery life perhaps?

 

[Eric S.]

The optical drive is the only large part of my notebook that I don't use all the time.

I use the optical drive a lot more often that I use the audio in/out ports or the external monitor connection, all of which I have never once used. (But I still wouldn't want to see them removed, because who know when they might be useful.)

 

[flight]

I use the optical drive a lot more often that I use the audio in/out ports or the external monitor connection, all of which I have never once used. (But I still wouldn't want to see them removed, because who know when they might be useful.)

I think the argument is that the optical drive can be sold as an external unit, perfect for those who only use it occasionally. I'm still on the fence about the issue. More battery would be nice since I would not have much use for discrete graphics on a portable. But with a 10-hour battery already available, the weight penalty doesn't seem worth the few extra hours.

 

[tlinford]

Power crazy!

I found the jump from 2.1 Ghz, 2 G Ram white MacBook to my current MacBook Pro 13 leaves me with more power than I need, apart from some Video rendering, which really needs ann IMac anyway....

The move away from Intel graphics was a big step forward in the MacBook Pro's: Intel could loose more than Apple's business if the don't produce better graphics or relax the legal issue! I think The Idea of AMD is a bit scary (unwise), simply because as my last exposure to them in HP Tablet PC's (4 years ago!) was hot and thirsty, with poor performance to boot!

I actually think in the refresh that the pro 13 is less compromising than the 15/17! OK so they have i5/i7 (so what?) they have a stupid intel DH graphic device in it. I notice that Apple skip straight to talking about 48 core Nvidia highlight, gently missing the intel graphics, selling auto switching! nice marketing.... actually auto switching is very cool! just might be a bit of a step, like a poor automatic transmission in a car!

I use my MacBook all day on a battery, so I support the idea of a less compromising design with the graphics and increased battery performance for this device sounds good to me. The expense of having CPU boost really doesn't bother me (and what good is boost for video rendering which takes ages anyway? surly boost can only be used for short duration without melting Cores?). I suspect that people will opt for all day capability....

I am at Uni as a mature student, There are an increasing number of people using the MacBook Pro in universities and we are not diving for power, like the PC machine users.... Uni use, mostly involved reading PDF's, blackboard app connection through WiFi ... Document creating etc etc.... not really CPU intensive....

I think Mr Jobs understands the 13 inch MacBook Pro market well, after all I think the sales of this machine is what hurt the MacBook Air, which I suspect was a test-bed for UniBody anyway? I think it unlikely that an Air Refresh will happen, maybe it will be dropped..? I never through the G4 Cube that looked like a toaster would get dropped, I never got my hands on one of those bad-boys!

Maybe people would be used to the idea of ditching the DVD drive now, there was big resistance to the Air not having a CD Drive!

What sold the MacBook Pro over the Air, to me, wasn't the lack-luster CPU performance (anyhow look at the smaller laptop competition, the tiny Vaio's and Dell's offerings, with slow single core processors!), what sold this machine to me was the 7 hour battery, simple as that!

 

[Yinmay]

Originally Posted by Eric S.
I use the optical drive a lot more often that I use the audio in/out ports or the external monitor connection, all of which I have never once used. (But I still wouldn't want to see them removed, because who know when they might be useful.)

Originally Posted by flight
I think the argument is that the optical drive can be sold as an external unit, perfect for those who only use it occasionally. I'm still on the fence about the issue. More battery would be nice since I would not have much use for discrete graphics on a portable.

When you used your optical drive, was it at home or say at the airport, in a train, in a park, etc?
For sedentary usage a built-in optical drive is a waste of space.

 

[MacSlut]

I have a unibody MBP 13" and love it. I would've preferred an i5 or i7, but it's still a real solid machine.

I would say they should've removed the optical drive and allowed room for discrete graphics and a larger battery.

Next year though (if not earlier), Intel will have Sandy Bridge. It's going to put the graphic and the cpu on the same silicon, both at 32nm. It's a level of integration that couldn't be done with Nvidia, and will provide really great results in terms of efficiency and performance.

 

[sturmnacht]

I'd like to see a photo of the Vaio Z logic board, because I sure don't see any space for Arrandale on the 13" MBP.

You mean this?

http://blog.screenaid.com/2010/04/13/sony-vaio-z119-disassembly/

It's freakin' tiny. The board itself is a little over 90 grams.

 

[greenmeanie]

And did you even bother to look how thick those laptops are?

Every other manufacturer somehow manages to use i3, i5 and even i7 in 13" notebooks but Apple can not вщ this? Yeah, they can not use ATI graphics because (excuse), they can not use Intel IGP because (excuse). Those who want to serve their customers somehow managed to do this (and at least in case of Sony VAIO Z they did it really great). Battery lifetime can not be sustained with good discrete graphics? What else is new? That's an obvious compromise. Just do what Sony does: VAIO X with 14 hours battery life for those who uses laptops on safari in Africa and VAIO Z with great CPU and GPU for those who runs photo/video editing applications.

 

[sturmnacht]

And did you even bother to look how thick those laptops are?

Without the protruding battery, the Vaio Z is 0.1" thicker than the MBP--hardly any difference.

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

Something else you have to consider is that the battery for the Sony is physically external; only half of it intrudes into the case, therefore giving Sony more space for the logic board compared to the MBP.

 

[Eric S.]

When you used your optical drive, was it at home or say at the airport, in a train, in a park, etc?

At work. And if I'd had to depend on an external optical drive, it probably would have been at home and of no use to me (I doubt I'd always carry it with me). So most likely I would have to do something like borrow a coworker's Windows laptop, which is also undesirable.

 

[sturmnacht]

Something else you have to consider is that the battery for the Sony is physically external; only half of it intrudes into the case, therefore giving Sony more space for the logic board compared to the MBP.

You mean the regular-size battery or the larger size?

 

[John.B]

Next year though (if not earlier), Intel will have Sandy Bridge. It's going to put the graphic and the cpu on the same silicon, both at 32nm. It's a level of integration that couldn't be done with Nvidia, and will provide really great results in terms of efficiency and performance.

Well I hope by then Intel can do a whole lot better than their crappy "HD" IGP. Intel being Intel, I'm not willing to give them a pass and assume "great results in terms of ... performance". After all, these are the same people who brought us the GMA 950...

 

[orbital.zero]

I'm really impressed how lots of people still resisting to use that media from last century (sorry, it's so old I forgot the name ... oh ... I remember ! CD !).

Now we have a new technology called Flash Drives ! It's smaller, doesn't scratch, doesn't need a cover, it's A LOT faster, and many other pluses. Also you can now transfer data wirelessly ! Yeah ! No media needed ! It's thru the air ! Ain't it magical ?

Seriously, I have used my optical drive exactly 3 times since I bought my 13" MBP. One to burn a ubuntu DVD (just because I was lazy to turn on the desktop) and other 2 to do a disk check with SL disc. Yeah, I instelled Snow Leopard without a disc.

As shown in a previous post, the optical drive uses about 30% of internal space. And (to the bread and butter guy) the extra horsepower would be an optional. Something like:
- 13" MBP Option 1 $1200: Core i3/5, nVidia GPU, 4GB
- 13" MBP Option 2 $1500: Core hi5, Better nVidia GPU, 4GB
- 13" MBP Option 3 $1800: Core i7, Better nVidia GPU with more VRAM, 4GB

Some people prefer a smaller notebook. A higher resolution screen optional would be nice too.

(sorry, my english sucks)

 

[batchtaster]

Along with the lack of matte screen, this is a major reason why I decided not to upgrade my old 12" PowerBook G4 from 2004, even though I waited months for a refresh. Until they get it right, I'll keep using what works best for me. I'm not going to buy a litigation-influenced product.

No, you're going to stubbornly, defiantly and unnecessarily refuse to move beyond outdated, obsolete and limited tech for the sake of some arbitrary pseudo-principle.

More MacBook Pros for me.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

I think Apple did the right thing. A CPU in a laptop is hardly the bottleneck. To tell you the truth, most people would be hard pressed to notice a difference between the Core 2 Duo and the i5. The bottlenecks are usually the hard drive and the GPU(only when gaming). Let's face it, the i5 is not going to turn your MBP into a Mac Pro. If you really really need that much power that the Core 2 + SSD drive option + max RAM doesn't cut it for you then you really do need a Mac Pro....not a 15" MBP i5.

I do hope they investigate the AMD options and AMD makes a come back! It'll keep pressure on Intel to work out these things and keep pushing them on their graphics and CPU performance.

Kan-O-Z

 

[shareitall]

I'm glad they're using the lower power CPUs - I think battery life is a much greater issue for most users than the slight incremental performance improvement in the latest from Intel.

 

[jragosta]

A year old technology? I have the 2.4 C2D in my early 2008 white MB. Costed a fortune back then...Now it's early 2010, I want to replace my MB and... they have same processors in 13"

Actually, it's not. Yours is the older Penryn C2D. The new ones are Arrandale - so the performance difference is much greater than the modest clock rate difference.

I agree, remove it. Include an optional 50$ superdrive external.

They tried that with the MacBook Air. Sales weren't very exciting. I use my Superdrive all the time - both at home and one the road. Just a few of the items:
- Ripping CDs to iTunes
- Ripping DVDs
- Burning CDs to give large data files to people
- Burning CDs of music tracks

The CD isn't dead yet

 

[DeepIn2U]

I think Apple should drop Intel and Nivida! Screw their high price tags!

They should have just bought AMD in the first place and used their silicon!

The AMD chips are just as good at Intel's and they cost less. If they went with AMD we would not have to pay for Intel's high price tags in our Macs!

Plus, AMD owns ATI so there won't ever be a GPU dispute!

Ah yeah right!

1 Throw out the competitiveness of power per watt = we'd be at 2hr batt life.
2. Throw out proper dual core efficiency.
3. Throw out proper software compatibility.

If you recall AMD needed help from IBM in order to get Silicon on Chip working correctly when the G5 was already launched.

AMD is STILL behind the curve and 4yrs ago VERY expensive purchase leaving Apple VERY weak.