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

Apples BTO option in their "PRO" line..

I

iMackPro

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 31, 2011
333
0
Whats up with their weak ass upgrades?

i mean come one man!
Before i start my rant.. i love my new mac. to death. ill never own another pc (Notebook anyways, perhaps a desktop in the future depending on how the new iMac look)

I understand the 13 i guess just because its so small.

But for the 15s and 17s? 250$ for a single stupid 0.1Gz upgrade and a little more cache?
I think that should be an option for 100$ and there should be AT LEAST TWO MORE OPTIONS. i mean dell gives you like 5 or 6 sometimes..
There should be a 2.2 2.3 2.7 or like 3.1 for the CPU
the GPU im not in dire need of, the card in the 2.2 is substantial for most users.
but HDD ? i think 7200 should be standard, then an option for a 10k and a 12k hard drive!!! these are PRO COMPUTERS!! and space, all should have 750 gig and options for 1 and 2 TB.

I would not mind paying some cash for these hefty upgrades either..

If i could get a 15" quadcore clocking at like 2.9 Ghz id be the most happy computer user ever!!!! i KNOW apple can pull this off, so why aren't they??

Do you think its because if they did it would mean just wayyyyyy to big of an advance in one refresh and they'd have trouble beating it in the next refresh? i just don't think its fair they give you one upgrade option and its usually not worth it. The only option that is a must have really is the HD screen. anything else i can live without, well i say that but their 128 SSD is pretty amazing. i do really wish i could have a much higher clocked CPU, i would mind the sound or heat wither, it'd be TOTALLY WORTH it, IMHO.

is anyone with me on these>

Would you pay 400$ to set your computer on a 2.7 or 500 on a 3.0 clockspeed in a quadcore computer? it'd be so amazing!
 
I see your point the only problem is that what you want even Intel doesn't offer. The 3 processor choices offered are the 3 fastest processors Intel offers (with the exception of the Extreme and I am not sure what it has to offer over the others as Intels site doesn't offer a direct comparison chart and if you are complaining about the insufficient increase now you wouldn't want slower options for the offering). I like a faster drive but it isn't always about the speed, the platter density and # of platters plays a factor as well as the power consumption. If you got what you wanted and the battery life was 1-2 hours and it weighed 38 pounds then you would be complaning about why can't they offer a lighter option with better battery life.

We are never going to please everybody and Apple is trying to focus on the main wants/ needs of the consumer while still turning a profit. The more options offered, the lower their profit margin becomes. I say this as they don't sell loads of computers compared to say Dell, so they would have to negotiate buying parts in smaller quantities, thus driving up their price and down their negotiating power. Their is a reason that have gone to one form factor for say the iPhone, as the parts are interchangeable, The screen in the CDMA version if is the same on the GSM version, they could have made them appear different, but that would have increased the manufacturing cost. They could have offered a MBA with a drive ODD option but it would have required extra manufacturing costs.

We would all love a 13" 3.0 quad i7 with 1920x1200 resolution screens with 1TB SSDs and 32 GB of RAM, a TB, USB 3.0, and PCIe Slot, with BR drive and runs at 20 degrees C for $699, but it isn't going to happen.:D
 
squeakr said:
I see your point the only problem is that what you want even Intel doesn't offer. The 3 processor choices offered are the 3 fastest processors Intel offers (with the exception of the Extreme and I am not sure what it has to offer over the others as Intels site doesn't offer a direct comparison chart and if you are complaining about the insufficient increase now you wouldn't want slower options for the offering).
Click to expand...

Intel has both a i7 with a clockspeed of 2.8 and 3.2! With Turbo Boost up to 3.46 Ghz. The 3.2 is a little high in a Laptop (still LOVE TO HAVE IT :D) but i don't know why apple doesn't give the 2.8 sped as in option? the 15s should be 2.2 standard with the option of 2.3 and 2.8! would make much more sense in my opinion, but hey what do i know im just a geeky med student :p:rolleyes:

also, on INTELs page i see a i7 with 2.50Ghz clockspeed, yeah it is the extreme edition, but then again these are extreme notebooks? i mean at least in the 17" right ?!
 
Last edited:
iMackPro said:
Intel has both a i7 with a clockspeed of 2.8 and 3.2! With Turbo Boost up to 3.46 Ghz. The 3.2 is a little high in a Laptop (still LOVE TO HAVE IT :D) but i don't know why apple doesn't give the 2.8 sped as in option? the 15s should be 2.2 standard with the option of 2.3 and 2.8! would make much more sense in my opinion, but hey what do i know im just a geeky med student :p:rolleyes:

also, on INTELs page i see a i7 with 2.50Ghz clockspeed, yeah it is the extreme edition, but then again these are extreme notebooks? i mean at least in the 17" right ?!
Click to expand...

Maybe in a desktop chip, or a dual core. There's no such thing as a 2.8GHz quad-core mobile chip. If there was, the TDP would probably be unacceptable. The 15" is already capable of pulling more power (>90W) under load than its 85w power adaptor can support.

There's also no such thing as a 2TB mobile (2.5") hard drive. You're asking for things that don't exist.

Besides, the limiting factor for performance in current laptops is I/O, hence SSDs and the excitement over Thunderbolt.
 
tokyovigilante said:
Maybe in a desktop chip, or a dual core. There's no such thing as a 2.8GHz quad-core mobile chip. If there was, the TDP would probably be unacceptable. The 15" is already capable of pulling more power (>90W) under load than its 85w power adaptor can support.

There's also no such thing as a 2TB mobile (2.5") hard drive. You're asking for things that don't exist.

Besides, the limiting factor for performance in current laptops is I/O, hence SSDs and the excitement over Thunderbolt.
Click to expand...

isn't this what apple is known for?! Finding/creating/helping develop items we don't know exist yet and present them to us? :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2011-04-15 at 4.24.43 AM.png
    Screen shot 2011-04-15 at 4.24.43 AM.png
    148.5 KB · Views: 603
i Stand corrected on the Laptop CPU thank you for correcting me politely. but still, i think the 2.2 should be the base and 2.3 be the only step up! and as for all the other options…. yeah 750 should be the minimum. and 5400 shouldn't even be a choice! not now, and not 2 years ago lol
 
iMackPro said:
hmm……...
Click to expand...

Your image is for desktop chips. Even the prior generation mobile chips (which who would want one now with Sandy Bridge available) didn't have anything in those clock ranges (unless you count with Turbo Boost enabled). The fastest of the current line are the 2.0, 2.2, and 2.3 currently offered.
 
iMackPro said:
Intel has both a i7 with a clockspeed of 2.8 and 3.2! With Turbo Boost up to 3.46 Ghz. The 3.2 is a little high in a Laptop (still LOVE TO HAVE IT :D) but i don't know why apple doesn't give the 2.8 sped as in option? the 15s should be 2.2 standard with the option of 2.3 and 2.8! would make much more sense in my opinion, but hey what do i know im just a geeky med student :p:rolleyes:

also, on INTELs page i see a i7 with 2.50Ghz clockspeed, yeah it is the extreme edition, but then again these are extreme notebooks? i mean at least in the 17" right ?!
Click to expand...

Those are the speeds for the desktop processors, not mobile. Go to Intel's site and look under laptop processors to see the current offerings (that's what I did before I posted my findings and how I knew they were the fastest available).
 
if you've read the forums at all, the latest quad cores are the fastest speed bump ever, yet how many threads do you see complaining about poor battery life and heat?

The majority of apple laptop users want a silent computer that doesn't break a sweat and never needs to be plugged, thats why they buy mac instead of Dell.

Now that macs are fast enough to play games on, they are pulling in a whole new crowd that doesn't necessarily care about anything but frame rate.

What your asking for they will never give you.... it's the classic apple tradeoff of elegance vs. performance.
 
Geez. Apple puts the best mobile processors available in the new MacBook Pro, and some people still aren't happy. Go figure. :rolleyes:

If you want bigger/faster HDDs, more RAM, etc., then buy aftermarket. Is that so hard? Apple's CTO options are designed for mass appeal (i.e., what will drive the most sales). If you want the very best, you have to go outside of Apple. This isn't anything new.
 
iMackPro said:
Whats up with their weak ass upgrades?

i mean come one man!
Before i start my rant.. i love my new mac. to death. ill never own another pc (Notebook anyways, perhaps a desktop in the future depending on how the new iMac look)

I understand the 13 i guess just because its so small.

But for the 15s and 17s? 250$ for a single stupid 0.1Gz upgrade and a little more cache?
I think that should be an option for 100$ and there should be AT LEAST TWO MORE OPTIONS. i mean dell gives you like 5 or 6 sometimes..
There should be a 2.2 2.3 2.7 or like 3.1 for the CPU
the GPU im not in dire need of, the card in the 2.2 is substantial for most users.
Click to expand...

Intel charges $200 more for the 2.2 to 2.3 upgrade, so I'd say the $250 isn't that bad. The only faster mobile CPU intel makes is the 2.5 extreme, which is double the cost of the 2.3 and has a 10W higher TDP. I wouldn't say that's worth the extra cost and lower battery life.

but HDD ? i think 7200 should be standard, then an option for a 10k and a 12k hard drive!!! these are PRO COMPUTERS!! and space, all should have 750 gig and options for 1 and 2 TB.
Click to expand...

I'll buy the 7200 RPM being standard, but there are no 10 or 12k hard drives available that would work in a laptop. If you need faster speeds, buy an SSD. 1TB is only available up to 5400 RPM, and there are no 2TB drives that would fit in a MBP.

I would not mind paying some cash for these hefty upgrades either..

If i could get a 15" quadcore clocking at like 2.9 Ghz id be the most happy computer user ever!!!! i KNOW apple can pull this off, so why aren't they??

Do you think its because if they did it would mean just wayyyyyy to big of an advance in one refresh and they'd have trouble beating it in the next refresh? i just don't think its fair they give you one upgrade option and its usually not worth it. The only option that is a must have really is the HD screen. anything else i can live without, well i say that but their 128 SSD is pretty amazing. i do really wish i could have a much higher clocked CPU, i would mind the sound or heat wither, it'd be TOTALLY WORTH it, IMHO.

is anyone with me on these>

Would you pay 400$ to set your computer on a 2.7 or 500 on a 3.0 clockspeed in a quadcore computer? it'd be so amazing!
Click to expand...

What do you need such a high clock speed for? You would have to pay $1000 extra just to get 2.5GHz. If you need that much, check out the Mac Pro, or at least do some research to find out what actually is possible.
 
The higher clocked CPU and more powerful Cpu you put in a laptop means more heat, which people are already complaining about.
 
davmcn said:
The higher clocked CPU and more powerful Cpu you put in a laptop means more heat, which people are already complaining about.
Click to expand...

well yes i get this, but i also think they are idiots for complaining about the amount of power the CPU and GPU are capable of. and anyone knows from chemistry that power and heat are always together. So if you want a lot of power, expect a LOT of heat. and anyone that pushes their computer to 89% or more (random number) i doubt will have on their lap anyways, and so they are stupid for complaining about heat that THEY generate pushing their computer, which is under an INCH thick. what did they think was going to happen???
 
Going back to topic, the lack of choice in the range of CPUs may be because of Apple's business model. For instance, if I was to offer you product x and y at a discount of 10% on order quantities of 1million for each item or you can get a discount of 3% if you order 500k quantities each of product a, b, c and d. With selling margins being equal and assuming you will sell all your stock, which option would you take?

Also do bear in mind, the more options available could lead to the likelihood of overlapping targeted market segments which really isn't a good idea in business.
 
I can understand limited cpu options but i think there should be a 15" mbp with integrated graphics only for those people who do every day tasks but want a larger screen.
 
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