Did anyone PREFER the 13 over the 15?

[palpatine]

some of the comments in this thread have the sweet smell of bull feces. my excrement is so much better than yours because of its glossiness/dullness, weight, or size. your scat is pathetic. mine smells so sweet. your droppings don't even qualify as poo. my opinion is absolute truth and yours is moronic drivel. blah, blah, blah.

before taking a dump, consider the fact that not everyone's needs/wants are the same, and they just might not think you smell like a rose. turn on the fan, light a match, spray some febreeze, and show a little consideration for others.

 

[Manacit]

Personally, I went with a 15" MBP high end, with all of the bells and whistles, and I have a 10" HP Mini running #! for when I need something portable.

That way I get the best of both worlds, if I want to bring along something that's powerful and can get the job done, I have my MBP. If I only need to do web browsing or simple tasks, I can use my mini, which has a 92% size keyboard and a screen resolution that's adequate for basic stuff.

 

[ayeying]

off topic but im guessing the stuff you do require the performance of the 15 right?

Well, when I got this, the 13" still used the Core 2 Duo processors. However, even now, the GPU would still lean me to the 15". I do play games, not all the time, but when I want to play games, I want a dedicated not an integrated video card. Been there, it wasn't fun.

 

[Surfing@Blacks]

I agree with this answer somewhat.

BUT.

thats almost as if your saying a dedicated video card is what makes the 15" a pro. Your high res argument becomes null because the 15" base has a lower PPI than the 13". Unless you dont consider the base 15" a pro. yes, a high res option is given, but you have to admit, you don't see 90% of the people with a 15" choosing that option. if you do, i have to live where you live!

The only other difference i can see that you'll list is the quad core. so is the quad core and gpu the two deciding factors to YOU that make a computer a pro? No shots, honestly just curious.

Where I live.. you will see 10 year olds with high end MBPs.... It is crazy. Back on topic, Quad core, dedicated gfx card, high res screen... those 3 things make a huge difference in my field. I use my high end 15 inch while I travel to different locations and do on the spot editing and short trailers to show my clients. When I get back home, I work on my MacPro. It was very.. I mean VERY frustrating to use a 13 inch MBP on the field to do edits. The screen size/resolution being the main problem for me. The dedicated card only helps when I do some 3d work on the go and the quad core helps me reduce time on all my processes.

It is a great machine, however it has no use for me.

 

[theturtle]

Where I live.. you will see 10 year olds with high end MBPs.... It is crazy. Back on topic, Quad core, dedicated gfx card, high res screen... those 3 things make a huge difference in my field. I use my high end 15 inch while I travel to different locations and do on the spot editing and short trailers to show my clients. When I get back home, I work on my MacPro. It was very.. I mean VERY frustrating to use a 13 inch MBP on the field to do edits. The screen size/resolution being the main problem for me. The dedicated card only helps when I do some 3d work on the go and the quad core helps me reduce time on all my processes.

It is a great machine, however it has no use for me.

respectable answer. tyvm.

 

[Bloodstar]

I could probably barely afford a 15" when I get my MBP in a few months (hopefully)... but I'll be springing for a 13 whether I can get a 15 or not. (I can even get an SSD if I truly feel the need, too - which is the Air's real advantage, I think.)

The biggest minus, however, is the resolution. I bought my previous laptop thanks to its 1440x900 resolution (best I could find at the time), and it'll hurt a bit dropping to 1280x800 (though it's not THAT terrible.) It isn't enough to push me to a 13" Air, though.

...But I might end up with the next generation MBP if they're released in October, like I'm thinking... and my real issue with the 13" might even be solved by then. (Hey, you can hope, right...?)

 

[42streetsdown]

i personally like the 13 inch form factor. i like the extra portability, but when it comes to the current 13" MBPs the graphics card department is lacking. that's the reason to go 15".

 

[randomrazr]

i would choose my 2011 13+2011 imac over the top of the line 15 or 17 any day of the week. alot more flexible than trying to make a 15 inch to do everything a desktop can do.

ur comparing apples to oranges

imacs are desktops

macbooks are laptops

people buy the 15inch for portability, not to entirely replace a desktop

 

[Blues003]

I need a portable and powerful computer, which is why I am saving and planning to buy a Macbook Pro.

If I was just looking at portbaility, the MBA 13'' would've been my choice. However, even after the update it's bound to have, I doubt it'll have enough CPU and GPU capabilities to withstand my needs. Because it's likely to be a LV/ULV chipset, the fact it's iX still won't make it as good as the MBP. Not to mention one would probably be stuck at 4GB of RAM tops. AND there's also the storage space issue. Whiel the MBA is a fabulous machine for those who have a desktop at home or have not-so-intensive needs, I figured out it wouldn't be enough for my music-creation.

On the other hand, I also need something portable. A 15'' is not portable. I have a 3 Kg, 15'' laptop, and it weighs a LOT on my back. I'm 6.2 feet tall, BTW. The 15'' surely had the power I needed, but not the portability. I need something I can take to faculty every day, and among the books and specific material I need, I can't fit an extra 2.5 Kg on my bag.

The 13'' MBP seems like the most logical option to me. It's portable enough (2Kg are bearable), powerful enough for all my needs (browsing, casual gaming, word/excell/powerpoint creation, a LOT of PDF reading, music creation, video editing and photoshopping), and it also gets a good price for what it delivers.

It depends on what you want: Price, Portability or Power.

I preferred the balance, which is why a MBP 13'' was the best option. If I was concerned about price, I'd buy either a Macbook or a Windows laptop. If I wanted portability, a MBA. If I wanted power, then a 15'' or a Desktop.

Obviously, it all depends on your day-to-day usage. If you go to work every day by car (I don't!), then a 15'' can be as portable to you as a 13'' is to me!

 

[Performa636CD]

Many say the 13" MBP has plenty of power for them, and they're probably right...as of today. But 3 years from now, I don't think that will still be the case. I believe the 13" MBP will show its age a lot more than the 15" MBP after a set period of time...a pretty obvious statement, actually. If you buy new laptops every 2-4 years, this isn't a problem. But since I buy them every 5-7 years, I prefer the more powerful laptop.

 

[h00ligan]

Many say the 13" MBP has plenty of power for them, and they're probably right...as of today. But 3 years from now, I don't think that will still be the case. I believe the 13" MBP will show its age a lot more than the 15" MBP after a set period of time...a pretty obvious statement, actually. If you buy new laptops every 2-4 years, this isn't a problem. But since I buy them every 5-7 years, I prefer the more powerful laptop.

How do you figure when many people are still content with core2duo machines?

My laptop is about to turn 4, of course I want a new one, but really, wht am I getting? The 20 videos I do for the shelter in iMovie encode in 1/4 the time (save six mins a video)... Or my photoshop actions complete in 4 seconds instead of 1?

At the end of the day, there's very little most people couldn't do with a Santa rosa MacBook pro at this point (assuming the vid card doesn't implode)

Of course it would be nice to have a new one, with better battery life...hard to justify for me right now, especially using the iPad so much and having a 4.6ghz core i5 desktop with 16 gigs of ram built for < $750.

Even if I decided a 15" would be my only machine, given my old one would be worth MAYBE $500, I'm not sure I could justify another $1500 for 3 more years..plus a redesign will hit hopefully before it dies.

Anyway, to get back on track, I see notng about the 13 that would render it obsolete in 3 years, though some users may grow tired of the low resolution (the ine really big mistake they made with this laptop IMO)

 

[JoeG4]

What defines a portable laptop is totally up to the owner: I tote around a 16", 6.9lb laptop all the time and have never really had an issue with that (it replaced my 13", and I didn't like the 13" much).

To some people the extra resolution isn't worth it, to me the lighter weight isn't worth it!

 

[Virgo]

I honestly wanted the 15-inch due to the hi-res option and quad-core, thinking it would be more future proof. But my parents were paying for it, and it was hard enough to convince them to get me a Mac because they're used to the cheapo $500 windows laptops.

So I did settle with a 13" pro, but I LOVE it. The only thing that upsets me is that there is not a hi-res option on the 2011 PRO 13in, yet the 2010 AIR 13in has hi-res. That's just really annoying to me. If my 13in pro had hi-res thus more screen real estate, I would have virtually no complaints!!!

 

[awer25]

I honestly wanted the 15-inch due to the hi-res option and quad-core, thinking it would be more future proof. But my parents were paying for it, and it was hard enough to convince them to get me a Mac because they're used to the cheapo $500 windows laptops.

So I did settle with a 13" pro, but I LOVE it. The only thing that upsets me is that there is not a hi-res option on the 2011 PRO 13in, yet the 2010 AIR 13in has hi-res. That's just really annoying to me. If my 13in pro had hi-res thus more screen real estate, I would have virtually no complaints!!!

Screen resolution was the only reason I sold my 13" and went with a 15". It would be really nice if Apple stepped up their game on the 13" and had the option for the Air's screen.

 

[MCHR]

After living with a 13" MBP for a week, it's perfect for me. Cost was not an issue, but size and portability were (are). Personally, I didn't see that much difference in performance speed wise between 13 and 15 inchers, but of course you have a bigger desktop with a 15".

My take on it is that I don't need everything all the time, and I don't want to carry it all the time either. The desktop MP with all it's goodies is for that (and I'm more than happy that I have that for all the editing, Photoshop, and flat out relaxing when doing hardcore image generation). If I was trying to do that on a miniature 13, 15 or whatever screen, I'd feel claustrophobic.

So It's one for the money, and two for the show. The MBP in some people's arsenal fits them well. To me, it's just a portability issue, leaving the work for the desktop and mobile nature to the MBP 13".

Plus it fits better in a motorcycle pannier than a MP.

 

[EEXOOO]

Sadly cost was the deciding factor.

The only things I want from the 15" are the bigger high-res matte screen and audio in/out separate ports. I do not need the higher processing power over the 13 and certainly do not mind the size and weight of the laptop since I use it solely for my desktop.

Affording the 15" is certainly not a problem. Justifying the difference in price (~SGD$1000) is a problem. If the difference in price is ~SGD$500 then yes, without a doubt I would have went with the 15".

 

[torbjoern]

When I got my first Mac, I actually wanted the 15" MBP more, and would have bought that if it wasn't for the price. I already had a 15" Asus-notebook of same weight (yet more than twice as thick) so the footprint didn't matter. The display of the Asus-machine was 1280x800 pixels, so I would have been thrilled by the 1440x900 in the MBP 15". Then again, the price... so I ended up with a 13".

When it was time to buy a new Mac (and I actually had enough money to buy a 15" MBP), I ended up with a 13" MBA instead which costed the same as the 15" MBP - yet only had half the weight and the same screen estate.

 

[soLoredd]

I just bought a refurb early 2011 MBP 13" to replace my early 2008 MBP 15". Money wasn't an issue for me, I just wanted something with a little smaller footprint. My wife has a 13" MB and that size is just perfect for what I need it for. If I need more screen real estate I can just hook it up to my monitor, not a big deal.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

I can answer that.
The 15" is not as powerful as the 17". This is due to more efficient cooling.

Yeah you might score a few more points in a benchmark, but you are never going to notice the difference in real world use. I guess the 15" is a waste of money if you're a stat whore and really care about those extra 9 points in geekbench

The 15" has a lower maximum resolution than the 17".

It also has a smaller screen. They have almost the same pixel densities with the HR 15" at 128ppi, and the 17" at 132ppi... yet you recommend the 13" which has the worst display of all of apples notebooks???

The 15"s speakers suck compared to the 17".

I don't think apple uses different speakers between the two models but if you have proof I would love to see it. And if the 15" speakers are terrible how do you put up with the 13"?

The 15" has one less USB port.

so a usb port is the deal breaker? all of your other points are useless so apparently the fact that it has one less usb port makes the 15" the most useless and a blatant rip off right?

The 15" has SD card slot, the 17" has ExpressCard (for those that prefer it).

This is really the only valid difference that you have made.

 

[h00ligan]

If the 13 inch had an option for dedicated gfx card and high res screen... I could see it having a place in the "Pro" series of laptops. Right now... it really is what the macbook should be.

I've disagreed with some of your other points in this thread (not responding) but I have to agree with this statement. At the price and weight, given the competition and siblings... The MacBook pro really should drop the pro from its name.

 

[revelated]

Yeah you might score a few more points in a benchmark, but you are never going to notice the difference in real world use. I guess the 15" is a waste of money if you're a stat whore and really care about those extra 9 points in geekbench

The bottom line is that the 17" is a faster machine. Period.

It also has a smaller screen. They have almost the same pixel densities with the HR 15" at 128ppi, and the 17" at 132ppi... yet you recommend the 13" which has the worst display of all of apples notebooks???

Because for one's dollar, the 13" is a better value. Period. It's EXTREMELY difficult to justify a $600 premium for what amounts to a $200 monitor.

I don't think apple uses different speakers between the two models but if you have proof I would love to see it. And if the 15" speakers are terrible how do you put up with the 13"?

Google can give you proof, everyone knows that the 17" has the best speaker quality of the entire MacBook Pro squad. And I don't put up with the 13"s speakers, they suck too.

so a usb port is the deal breaker?

The price difference is the deal breaker. Pay attention. You're one of those cats who doesn't understand APPEAL vs VALUE.

The 15" is APPEALING. It is not a VALUE.

Compared to the 13" it's overpriced, period - spec wise the 13" isn't $600 - $800 off, I'm sorry, but it isn't. The 15" is a slightly better processor, a slightly more pixel dense monitor, and a graphics card. MAYBE $400 worth of total hardware. IN my eyes that makes the 15" more reasonable at a price point of around $1800 at the high end.

Compared to the 17" it's overpriced, period. There's no justification whatsoever for the 15" to be near the same price for the maxed out model as the base model 17" when the base model 17" destroys it in the areas I stated. And no, the 17" isn't a steal either, but that just makes the price of the 15" that much more inflated.

I know some of you just say, "I want it, so it's worth the money!!! " Great. But the reality is, it's a ripoff. Maybe you're ok being ripped off. Do you.

 

[soulreaver99]

some of the comments in this thread have the sweet smell of bull feces. my excrement is so much better than yours because of its glossiness/dullness, weight, or size. your scat is pathetic. mine smells so sweet. your droppings don't even qualify as poo. my opinion is absolute truth and yours is moronic drivel. blah, blah, blah.

before taking a dump, consider the fact that not everyone's needs/wants are the same, and they just might not think you smell like a rose. turn on the fan, light a match, spray some febreeze, and show a little consideration for others.

Thank you for making the internet such a glorious place.

 

[h00ligan]

The bottom line is that the 17" is a faster machine. Period.



Because for one's dollar, the 13" is a better value. Period. It's EXTREMELY difficult to justify a $600 premium for what amounts to a $200 monitor.



Google can give you proof, everyone knows that the 17" has the best speaker quality of the entire MacBook Pro squad. And I don't put up with the 13"s speakers, they suck too.



The price difference is the deal breaker. Pay attention. You're one of those cats who doesn't understand APPEAL vs VALUE.

The 15" is APPEALING. It is not a VALUE.

Compared to the 13" it's overpriced, period - spec wise the 13" isn't $600 - $800 off, I'm sorry, but it isn't. The 15" is a slightly better processor, a slightly more pixel dense monitor, and a graphics card. MAYBE $400 worth of total hardware. IN my eyes that makes the 15" more reasonable at a price point of around $1800 at the high end.

Compared to the 17" it's overpriced, period. There's no justification whatsoever for the 15" to be near the same price for the maxed out model as the base model 17" when the base model 17" destroys it in the areas I stated. And no, the 17" isn't a steal either, but that just makes the price of the 15" that much more inflated.

I know some of you just say, "I want it, so it's worth the money!!! " Great. But the reality is, it's a ripoff. Maybe you're ok being ripped off. Do you.

Ok so let me ask you this.

If two machines were pretty much equal in pure computation, video encoding etc..but the 15" was faster for games, would you pay $50 more for the 15?

I see people say, they settled for the 13" because of the price difference...well...last years 15" is basically the same speed and very close in price, also a much better value and one would take less of a loss. So why not get that? I am aware there are benchmark discrepancies where the new base 13" is faster, but the same can be said for last years 15", so performance wise it's pretty much a wash.

 

[shoppy]

I sold my 17" and brought the same spec 15"minus the screen res and 256mb extra graphics and saved over £700 pounds cash. The machine has a few marks, but nothing that bad that I can not live with. Main reason is I know I will buy next years redesign. I have the standard res now but can live it also I only used the express card with an sd card adapter. I am not a power user, I simply browse the web, itunes and iphoto.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

The bottom line is that the 17" is a faster machine. Period.

Barely faster... and since you claim that the processor in the 15" (which is the same as the 17") is only slightly better than the dual core in the 13" then the minuscule difference between the 15" and 17" is negligible. If the 15" processor, which is almost TWICE as fast as the 13" is only a slightly better CPU, then how can you claim the 17" to be oh so much better because it gains a few points in geek bench since it has more room for cooling. STUPID argument, and invalid point since you don't even see the 15" processor as better and it's the EXACT same on in the 17"

Because for one's dollar, the 13" is a better value. Period. It's EXTREMELY difficult to justify a $600 premium for what amounts to a $200 monitor.

a $200 monitor? So the larger hard drive, better processor, discrete gpu... they all must be imaginary items that don't really exist right?

The price difference is the deal breaker. Pay attention. You're one of those cats who doesn't understand APPEAL vs VALUE.

You must be out of your mind. You won't pay a premium over the 13" for better specs and screen size, but you will pay a premium over the 15" for a larger screen and an express card slot? Your logic is stupid. If the price between the 13 and 15 is a deal breaker why not the price between the 15 and 17?

The 15" is APPEALING. It is not a VALUE.

Compared to the 13" it's overpriced, period - spec wise the 13" isn't $600 - $800 off, I'm sorry, but it isn't. The 15" is a slightly better processor, a slightly more pixel dense monitor, and a graphics card. MAYBE $400 worth of total hardware. IN my eyes that makes the 15" more reasonable at a price point of around $1800 at the high end.

Compared to the 17" it's overpriced, period. There's no justification whatsoever for the 15" to be near the same price for the maxed out model as the base model 17" when the base model 17" destroys it in the areas I stated. And no, the 17" isn't a steal either, but that just makes the price of the 15" that much more inflated.

I know some of you just say, "I want it, so it's worth the money!!! " Great. But the reality is, it's a ripoff. Maybe you're ok being ripped off. Do you.

lol you are proving my point for me. You just said the 15" isn't worth the premium for a

slightly better processor, a slightly more pixel dense monitor, and a graphics card

but the 17" is worth the price difference when it has the EXACT same processor, EXACT same GPU, and a SLIGHTLY more dense screen? How can you justify that the 17" is worth it when it has the SAME specs as the 15"

Whatever, think what you want but this is seriously the dumbest argument i've ever heard. You think a 17" is worth it and a 15" is not because of 2" difference in screen size and an express card slot.... stupidest thing ever stated