Nobody's forcing you to buy anything from Apple, and buying their computers is hardly a good way to protest their practices.
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.
Apples MacBook Pro: Rotting Core? What Apple Doesn't Want You To Realize.
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nobody's forcing you to buy anything from Apple, and buying their computers is hardly a good way to protest their practices.
The CPU is such a small part of the whole package that I think most genuinely fall into the "don't care" camp. I'm waiting just because I'm a geek like that, but I've given up on expecting any huge difference in my day-to-day work vs. a fast C2D.
Why would we assume that the CPU is the only thing that will be changed? It certainly isn't the only aspect of the current MBPs that are falling behind.
From the rumors/info I've found it seems to be the concensus that unibody is here to stay for a while, the displays are staying as-is, and no other big changes besides CPU and GPU are in the works. USB3 might make an appearance in this iteration but I doubt it.
I might be wrong of course, but I think if you're looking for a major revamp of the MBP in the coming release you're going to be disappointed.
I agree, I would like to buy a Macbook Pro, never bought an Apple notebook before, and I am already disappointed by Apple and by the lack of news. I mean, Apple won't even say WHY they do not give out any news.
I am now thiiiiiis close to buying a windows 7, latest spec laptop.
Apple NEVER gives out news. That's just the way it is. They don't announce new machines until they're released and ready to ship. It's easy to do when you have 5 or 6 or 7 models of laptop, but why on Earth would Apple announce a new machine that's not selling when they can still move the current stock, all of which are quite capable computers?
Regardless, if you're all about the specs, just don't ever buy a Mac, ever. If you want the best OS and total user experience you can get, buy a Mac and know that the folks building the computer are not the spec junkies you are.
So are you saying that Apple computers are invariably always lower specs than everyone else (but at the same price or higher?)? Wasn't that way in the past, as far as I remember. I think there's no news about the Macbook Pro because Apple are too busy trumpeting about the Ipad (aka crap-pad) which has received such bad press everywhere that they are scared of diverting attention away from what might be the biggest flop Apple has ever known.
Well I'm not going to wade into this debate but the OP brought up a good topic and one that applies to me specifically: we just lost our MacBook from last year and need to get a new laptop ASAP.
Coming from Vista-based Dell and HP laptops prior to buying the MacBook last year, I was extremely pleased with the pure simplicity of use of the MacBook. It actually "works" - meaning, when I close the notebook and open it up it either turns off or turns on nearly instantly. I could not do this with the Vista notebooks. Also, the MacBooks connect instantly to whatever wifi environment I am in while the old Vista notebooks would take forever to connect and I'd usually have to "repair" the connection just to get it to work.
However, we now have Windows 7 on the market and from what I see it performs much better on laptops.
Either way, as a likely notebook purchaser in coming weeks, I have spec'd out the Sony Vaio that was referenced by the OP to a similar 13" MBP as follows:
- i5 2.53 GHz Intel processor
- 4 GB RAM
- 256 GB Solid State Drive (for both machines)
- On the Sony, a $50 upgrade to Win 7 Pro
- No other software or other configurations on either machine.
By using these exact specs on both the Vaio and MBP, I get a price of $2350 for the Vaio and $2299 for the MBP, so a $50 premium for the Vaio.
As I see it, the pros/con for the Vaio are:
PRO: You can upgrade it further to an i7 Intel processor
PRO: It appears the graphics card/accelerator are superior
PRO: You get VGA, HDMI, more USB, smart card readers built in
PRO: You have the option of getting Blu-ray, albeit at a steep $500 premium
CON: You cannot get a non-SSD drive, which has the potential to save a lot of money
CON: It runs Windows
For the MBP, the pros/cons as I see it are:
PRO: You don't have to get a SSD, and can instead get a 'regular' drive, saving hundreds of dollars.
PRO: The OS - clearly superior to any Windows machine I've ever run but is this advantage still as huge as it was vs. Vista?
CON: You have to invest a lot of $$ in cables and converters given the limited number of inputs into the MBP.
So really, I am at a loss here. I hardly want to go back to Windows only to find out that it still sucks on a laptop, but at the same time it would seem the one can get better technology than the MBP (i.e. getting the i7 2.66 GHz adds only $150 to the Vaio's price tag) for not much more of a premium.
**Correction to my post: I forgot the MBP didn't even have the i5 yet...so in this context the Vaio seems even more superior**
Coming from Vista-based Dell and HP laptops prior to buying the MacBook last year, I was extremely pleased with the pure simplicity of use of the MacBook. It actually "works" - meaning, when I close the notebook and open it up it either turns off or turns on nearly instantly. I could not do this with the Vista notebooks. Also, the MacBooks connect instantly to whatever wifi environment I am in while the old Vista notebooks would take forever to connect and I'd usually have to "repair" the connection just to get it to work.
However, we now have Windows 7 on the market and from what I see it performs much better on laptops.
Either way, as a likely notebook purchaser in coming weeks, I have spec'd out the Sony Vaio that was referenced by the OP to a similar 13" MBP as follows:
- i5 2.53 GHz Intel processor
- 4 GB RAM
- 256 GB Solid State Drive (for both machines)
- On the Sony, a $50 upgrade to Win 7 Pro
- No other software or other configurations on either machine.
By using these exact specs on both the Vaio and MBP, I get a price of $2350 for the Vaio and $2299 for the MBP, so a $50 premium for the Vaio.
As I see it, the pros/con for the Vaio are:
PRO: You can upgrade it further to an i7 Intel processor
PRO: It appears the graphics card/accelerator are superior
PRO: You get VGA, HDMI, more USB, smart card readers built in
PRO: You have the option of getting Blu-ray, albeit at a steep $500 premium
CON: You cannot get a non-SSD drive, which has the potential to save a lot of money
CON: It runs Windows
For the MBP, the pros/cons as I see it are:
PRO: You don't have to get a SSD, and can instead get a 'regular' drive, saving hundreds of dollars.
PRO: The OS - clearly superior to any Windows machine I've ever run but is this advantage still as huge as it was vs. Vista?
CON: You have to invest a lot of $$ in cables and converters given the limited number of inputs into the MBP.
So really, I am at a loss here. I hardly want to go back to Windows only to find out that it still sucks on a laptop, but at the same time it would seem the one can get better technology than the MBP (i.e. getting the i7 2.66 GHz adds only $150 to the Vaio's price tag) for not much more of a premium.
**Correction to my post: I forgot the MBP didn't even have the i5 yet...so in this context the Vaio seems even more superior**
Well the GPU and CPU together are responsible for about 95% of a modern computer's performance.... so id say those two being updated is a HUGE deal.
And someone said the iCores aren't much of an upgrade.... to that person I ask, have you read any tech news in the past 6 months? Rationalize paying twice what a machine is worth if you want, but don't pretend core i5 isn't a pretty big upgrade.
If you need OS X than the issue is moot. If you can use windows, a Windows laptop is a FAR better value right now. Personally, id wait or go Windows, I would never consider Apple's current machines.
Look at the Vostro 3300, just released by DELL. No HDMI but otherwise looks like a solid machine at a great price. The Vaio is great but you are paying a huge premium for those SSDs (which also do not support TRIM out of the box and will suffer from saturation in due time). The Vaio does have a very good graphics card, but you may or may not need that. The top end 3300 has a decent one too, way better than the integrated that comes with the MBP 13.
I'm afraid it's unavoidable. This thread is pointless bitch and whine vortex. Best thing to do is keep out of it......Oops, too late.
So..your point is?
I drive a Chevrolet Suburban. It preforms it's designed function, which is getting me from point A to point B.
A computer, regardless of operating system, hardware specifications, and anything else, if it is functional, does the exact same thing. Gets me from point A to point B. I've read the reason for this big delay in getting new technology is due to the Intel/Nvidia disaster, where Intel does not want Nvidia designing a GPU chip for their newest Core i3/i5 chips. When it is straightened out, then, Apple will release new hardware, or, they will go with ATI for the mobile chips. In late 2009, I wanted to have a better computer for gaming, so, I built a PC for gaming, and it cost $500, and fits my needs perfectly. Everyone's needs are different, a professional video editor will not walk into the
store, and get a (at this time) hypothetical Mac Mini Core i3, and expect it to be far superior to the first gen Mac Pro. He will get the newest Mac Pro that will fit his specific needs. And, for those who are complaining about wanting a Core i5 MBP for "basic computing", which I would define as word processing, surfing the internet, and listening to music, my (newly given from a friend) PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz would preform those basic tasks adequately.
Maybe it's because the latest Intel processors are so popular? And it's certainly sooner than a MBP.
Of course, you naturally don't want people to compare PC's with Macs. Then (O the horrors!) people might realize how inferior Macs are to PC's right now. Because we all want Apple to continue making huge profit margins off 2-year old technology.
You..and others are acting like it would be the end of the world to be forced to purchase a MBP with a C2D that runs at 3.06 GHz, instead of being forced to purchase a generic PC 17" laptop with a Core i5 that runs at 2.53 GHz. I, for one, can wait a month or 2 until looking at getting a new MBP. You can, however, vote with your wallet, get a Core i5 laptop, or, wait for a Core i5 MBP, or, just get the current revision.
I think the problem is that Apple's Core 2 duo laptop at 3.06 Ghz starts at $2,599.00 before tax or any other add ons (well, add another $30 for a ridiculous mini display port adapter to DVI or VGA, or $100 to go to dual link DVI).
The performance and battery life are fine, the price for that tech is not!
No one has accused you of being an Apple worshipper. In fact, quite the opposite... you're a whiney-ass PC person who goes out of his way to whine about Apple in every single post. Yet you hang out in a Mac forum to do all this whining. Why?
I doubt anyone can "help" you with these particular types of Apple problems. Perhaps the root cause is some sort of jealousy over Steve Jobs' creative genius and business smarts? Whatever... i don't think whining will solve the matter.
I'd like to know for what you need so many powerful computers anyway. To spend even more time whining perhaps?
One can whine just as well on an iPad.
Arrandale hasn't been out for 6 months (only started shipping in large quantities last month), so not quite sure what you're talking about. Desktop Core i5/i7 chips are not the same as Mobile Core i5/i7 chips. If intel had come out with low watt quad core chips, I might agree with you. (but they haven't)
The Mobile i5/i7 chips are a nice but not earth-shattering upgrade from the current C2D's - about 20% at the same clock rate depending on workload.
Bingo. That is the exact thing that bothers me about everyone bitching and moaning about the new Core i3/i5/i7 chips not being in the
laptops.They really aren't all that much better than the C2Ds, and the only difference would be HT, turboboost (which, if no one noticed, that only the top version, at full turbo boost, meets the constant speed of the highest C2D (T9900) in the MBP, plus, the wattage is exactly the same?)
Sure,
should get faster memory, and maybe bump the prices down a little bit, or, if possible, put the mobile version of the Core 2 Quad into the top shelf MBP? That would be a nice performance bump, would it not?Visit notebookcheck.com and compare a 3.06GHz or 2.93GHz Penryn to a Core i5-540M. You may find yourself changing your mind.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
I think we're getting too fixated on the processor itself. Moving to Nehalem/Westmere mobile is an entire platform update as well.
Cache, FSB, number of cores, and 64-bit capability are identical to C2D.
It's pretty slick marketing on Intel's part, really, because they really don't put forth a lot of effort to keep people from confusing desktop i7s and laptop i7s...
Good point..why, aside from cost, doesn't
just go for the existing Clarksfield processors/platform? The processors, I believe, would be the Core i7-720QM/820QM family. Apple could use the Lynnfield i5-750s, with it's lower TDP for the Mac Mini, if at all possible, or, bring back the PowerMac G4 Cube, but, with the name Mac Pro Cube..no..maybe Mac Mini Cube?..iCube?..any suggestions?It would have the Core i5-750s, with the Core i7 processors as an option, 4 slots, or 2, (whatever fits), of DDR3 memory, the 9400M as a baseline GPU, and the 9600M GT, or 9800M GT as an option, or, go with the GT120/130. add a SuperDrive for it, and I'd purchase one as soon as they came out.
Good point..why, aside from cost, doesn't
Because when you've been selling a MBP with 7 hours of claimed battery life you might upset people selling a "new" version with 3 hours of claimed battery life.
I upgraded from a Q6600 to a Core i5 750. The performance difference is noticeable.
Turbo Boost with only two cores to balance between isn't that amazing to be honest.