Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases Updated MacBook Pros With Core i5 and i7 Processors

rmwebs said:
Maybe now people will stop bitching at the iPad news! You've got your MBP update that you've been waiting, now go have fun and leave the iPad topics alone!
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if they have anything to really complain about, some people just love to complain. If it's not about a lack of MBP update, it's about an update that isn't good enough.

To those of you who are whining about this update, no one forces you to buy a Mac. If you don't like the systems, buy a PC. Personally, I am tired of windows and I am looking forward to buying my first Mac in the fall.
 
512GB SSD - Good.
4GB RAM Standard - Meh. Should be 8GB on top models.
i7 available on the computers that matter - Good.
Video Card - CRAP.
Better Res on 15" - Gay that it's an upgrade; still not 1920x1080
 
Frustrating updates... CRAZY pricing

Enough said about C2D on 13" MBPs... frustrating for me (I was hoping to upgrade mine)

Now let's evaluate APPLE's pricing... CRAZY:
13"MBP 2.4Ghz $1,199
13"MBP 2.66Ghz $1,499

Besides the processor/speed bump, PRE-update you got RAM bump (2Gb->4Gb) and HD bump, NOW it is only an HD bump (250Gb->320Gb) which Apple charges only $50... hence, Apple is charging $250 for a 10% speed bump !!! :eek:

Again let's evaluate APPLE's pricing... now on 15" model... STILL CRAZY:
15"MBP 2.4Ghz $1,799
15"MBP 2.53Ghz $1,999

Besides the processor/speed bump, The HD bump (320Gb->500Gb) which Apple charges $100 but cost around $20-$40... hence, Apple is charging $100/$150 for a 5% speed bump !!! :mad:

Not as bad as the 13" MBP but still bad.

Solution ? Drop the price on the 13" 2.66Ghz model to $1,299-1,399 range and drop the price on the 15" 2.4Ghz model to $1,699-1,749 range.

Will APPLE do it ? I seriously doubt it. Maybe on a Back to School promotion, or later for the Xmas buying season.
 
Freebiscuits said:
is a 13" MBP worth getting over a normal macbook?? seems they have the same specs still....

MACBOOK
13-inch
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR3 memory
250GB hard drive1
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics
Built-in 7-hour battery2
$999


MACBOOK PRO 2010
13-inch
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
4GB Memory
250GB hard drive1
SD card slot
Built-in battery (10 hours)
NVIDIA GeForce 320M graphics
$1,199
Click to expand...
Wait for a MACBOOK 2010.
 
levitynyc said:
WOW!

13" Macbook Pro BOUGHT!!!

4GB and i5 in a 13" model for 1199? SOLD.

Fantastic update and was more than I was hoping for.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was just thinking there was no need for me to get a Macbook after I got the ipad but these specs are way more than I expected.


.......hmmmmm
 
No New 13" Macbook Cpu Update?!?!?! Are You Bleeping Kidding Mehh!!? Seriously.. I Had Dough Ready To Go Buy This Thing But Apple Ain't Getting My Green Stuff Before They Update That Outdated Laptop.

More Ram? SERIOUSLY? NOBODY NEEDS THAT MUCH RAM ANYWAYS, NEW GPU? COME TEH FRAK ON APPLE? IF I WANTED A MACHINE FOR GAMING I WOULD BUY A DESKTOP OR A PS3!!

Steve jobs go to hell!! I'm this close l---------l to buying an Android phone instead of the next iPhone.
Fail Fail Fail.
 
GA84 said:
You are absolutely right, very unrealistic of me to expect a 1080p display in a 15" laptop when Sony is putting a 1080p display in their 13" Vaio Z.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Sound Evolution said:
Dear All,

Well I skip this update. Will Apple ever goes quad-core? I have no desktop and do everything with my Macbook pro, and I run heavy applications like CAD and logic pro. So some find it useless in a laptop but I would really welcome a quad-core.

With kind regards,
Bas
Click to expand...
Probably 2012 at the earliest, given Intel CPU roadmaps.

gnasher729 said:
It's not in their price list. If it isn't in their price list, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
It's an OEM CPU (no listed price).

deus_ex_machina said:
You have Intel to thank for that - they won't put that on their boards until at least 2011. There's no rush for them to develop it since not many would use the bandwidth.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/04/nvidia-confirms-intel-chipsets-wont-support-usb-3-0-until-2011/
Click to expand...
Appears to be 2012 now.

http://translate.google.com/transla...?q=intel+patsburg+sandy+bridge&hl=en&safe=off

http://translate.google.com/transla...urg+sandy+bridge&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&start=10
 
stefan15 said:
16x10 instead of 16x9. Again, no excuses here. 16x9 is better in so many ways.
Click to expand...
Why is 16x9 better than 16x10? I mean, all the pixels for 16x9 are still there, plus some etra on the top/bottom, right? That is, is there anything you can't do with a 16x10 display that you can do with 16x9? Personally, I'll take all the vertical space I can get. More pixels=better!
 
mwayne85 said:
I expected a 16:9 switch, but i'm not too bothered by that.
Click to expand...

16:9 is a stupid aspect ratio for noobs with Dells that want to watch videos and do nothing else.

For actually doing productive work, the more vertical screen space the better.
 
miniroll32 said:
Although I'm sure Jobs would want Blu-Ray support, you are all forgetting that when he referred to "a bag of hurt", he was talking in retrospect of the legal situation. Sony haven't just handed over the rights to Blu-Ray technology willingly - this is business, and they are competing. The only consolation as far as this situation is concerned is that The Times suggested Apple were investigating a 'loop-hole' in the rights to use Blu-Ray - an already long and expensive process.
Click to expand...

You are being too kind to Jobs. Obviously it is his plan to merely drag his feet on Blu-ray (and pray that not ALL his high-end customers bail) until optical media is obsolete (in about 5-7 years.)

Of course that is an idiotic suicidal business position to take, but as long as iKiddies and a bought and paid for whore press are ooing and ahh-ing over at the shell game of new iCrap, Jobs is hoping no one will notice that the "newest" Mac computers are sub-par and "cutting edge" 2005.

:apple:
 
dennis123123 said:
16:9 is a stupid aspect ratio for noobs with Dells that want to watch videos and do nothing else.

For actually doing productive work, the more vertical screen space the better.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, sir. I did expect a 16:9 change. But, again, it doesn't bother me that they didn't switch for this very reason.
 
swarmster said:
The i3 uses more power (35W vs 25W) and is generally on par or a little slower than the newest Core 2 Duos. I'm not sure why everyone was hoping for an i3. i3 is the new Celeron, it would be a disgrace to see it in Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

They're probably the same youths who want more firepower in the cheaper machines because they know their parents won't buy them the more expensive ones.
So instead of cursing their moms and dads for being cheap, they find it easier to moan about Steve Jobs not making the stuff they want at prices daddy wants to spend on them.
 
I have to say I'm a bit stunned by some of the comments here.
This is the worst update ever ? Why ? If your laptop brings you everything you need, does it matter if it does so with an i5 or a C2D ?

Everything's not about Mhz guys.. Just take a look at the 13" specs globally : powerful processor, powerful graphic chip, 4Gb of ram, 10 hours of battery life, awesome trackpad, wifi n, bluetooth, ethernet 1000, firewire 800, sd-card etc..

Who wouldn't want a laptop like that ? Yes it's not the very last Intel processor, but do you need that in the first place ? I mean take a MBP, use it for a while, and dare to say that it's not a wonderful product.

I have a MacBook Unibody (october 2008) and there are no things I can't do with it (and even if there were, it would be things that are not meant to be done with a laptop anyway). That's just the Mac experience, and I'm ok with my processor being a C2D instead of a i5, because frankly, take a laptop of another brand with an i5, I'm pretty confident that it doesn't respond as well and that it's not as pleasant to use as a MBP.

Oh and sorry for my english :)

Cheers from France !
 
Aaon said:
Why is 16x9 better than 16x10? I mean, all the pixels for 16x9 are still there, plus some etra on the top/bottom, right? That is, is there anything you can't do with a 16x10 display that you can do with 16x9? Personally, I'll take all the vertical space I can get. More pixels=better!
Click to expand...
Depends on the resolutions. In terms of just numbers, some close resolutions:

1920x1200 » 1920x1080 = drop
1280x800 » 1366x768, 1920x1200 » 2048x1152 = give-and-take
1440x900 » 1600x900 = increase
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back