Don't take it. Return your inferior mbps

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mmoran27, Jun 13, 2009.

  1. mmoran27 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    #1
    I sadly returned my 13 mbp because I want to let apple know we are not stupid consumers.

    Vote with your wallets. So they upped the quality of the screens but cut the processor cache, VRAM, and SATA performance by 1/2.

    Please return it. And make sure the managers know why.

    People who complain about us voicing dissatisfaction deserve exactly what they got - gimped laptops with last gen features SD card, SATA 1, etc. What's next floppy drives?

    In the meantime enjoy your new macbook pro with slower transfer speeds than my mac mini :)
     
  2. assisterah macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #2
    Did you pay the restocking fee?
    Is it 10%or 15%?
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    yet its still cheaper than the ubmb's before the update:rolleyes:

    no, the mbp is still a great computer for the money
     
  4. shady825 macrumors 68000

    shady825

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Area 51
    #4
    "Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
    no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
    oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore"

    Twisted Sister anyone?? ;)
     
  5. airjuggernaut macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    #5
    HOLY JESUS CHRIST.

    I swear I was about to open the thread and post the SAME thing :|
     
  6. maratus macrumors 6502a

    maratus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    VRAM? It's still 256Mb as in both previous MB Unibody.
    Cache? It's still 3Mb L2 just like in both previous MB Unibody.
    (P8400 + P8700 vs P7350 + P8600 is nice upgrade, as you get hardware Intel VT support in basic model)

    Sata performance? Ok, that is real dissapointment (at least for SSD users) and another reason why I'll have a deeper look at 17" (I'm speaking about 15" SATA being 1.5G too)
     
  7. shady825 macrumors 68000

    shady825

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Area 51
    #7
    HILARIOUS!!! It was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread! :D
     
  8. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #8
    The only thing that was cut was the SATA bus speed.
     
  9. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #9
    :confused:

    As posted, the 13" always had 3MB cache and 256MB (shared) VRAM.

    And while System Profiler apparently states 1.5 gigabit, has anyone published any benchmarks to prove that it makes any difference compared to the prior model 13"?
     
  10. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #10
    and i bet the majority of users right now do not even use ssd's
     
  11. DeusInvictus7 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario
    #11
    It probably won't make a difference, unless you are using an SSD.
     
  12. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #12
    Let's face it... the majority of users don't even know what an SSD is, or what their sata speed is either for that matter. Most are learning about it now from the thread(s) here, and are upset over something that otherwise they would have never even known about or considered.

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  13. spaceboots06 macrumors 6502a

    spaceboots06

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    The Rotten Apple
    #13
    You're stating a fire!!!

    WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE, LA LA LA!

    Yeah, I consider myself to know a bit about technology and don't see a problem with a slower sata, at least in my case. I know people like to complain and moan over it but I really don't see a problem at the end of the day.
     
  14. aleksandra. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    #14
  15. BittenApple macrumors 6502a

    BittenApple

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
  16. analytical44 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #16

    http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=389666&page=4
    Quote from poster:
    "Well I live in AUS...I bought the MB 13" 4 days before new ones come out

    And I pickup the new MBP 13" 2 days after it come out (or first day it is available in gold coast Australia)

    I installed windows 7 64X...and using hdtune pro....these are the results i get..

    These are the SSD performance HIT that I have took screen shot

    This is the OLD MB 13"
    http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7919/83498751.jpg

    And this spose to be the NEW one!
    http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2213/26178782.jpg
    cabbitbunny is offline Reply With Quote"

    13" 2.53 MBP with OCZ Vertez results:
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=718462
     
  17. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #17
    i agree

    reminds me of the iphone crack issue. people read about it and then became so critical of their phone and any slight mishap HAD to be grounds for a replacement
     
  18. analytical44 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #18
    Why does this make it excusable? SSD's are the future (and not too distant future at that), why would Apple limit our options for performance optimization? I have to assume it's profit motivated but that would just be so disappointing if true. If there's not a fix for this, as much as I've been anxiously waiting to get a Mac, I think it's a deal breaker for me.
     
  19. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #19
    since when can you not use a ssd with 1.5? i agree with you about how it is a bummer but hardly the end of the world.

    if anything, the transfer rate would take an additional fraction of a second or what not

    the fact is that most people outside of these forums dont even know anything close to this technical mumbo jumbo

    it will most likely be included in the next refreash. ssds are mainstream now and by the time they are, people will already be looking for upgrades. in th mean time, even with 1.5 connections, you will still see an inprovement of an ssd over a hdd

    im not defending apple as i think its a bad move. its just not that critical of a move imho
     
  20. Azrel macrumors regular

    Azrel

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    #20
    That is a real shame, the new 13" MBP is perfect, better screen and firewire800, 8GB RAM support... but SATA I?

    Sorry, but most of the performance gains I've seen were not from Processor speed increases, but from the SSD equipped in my (now outdated) Alu. MB which runs at full speed SATA II. If this laptop had an integrated battery and firewire... I'de be one happy camper.

    "What Apple giveth, Apple taketh"... seriously, my own MacBook was crippled with 6GB ram limit, no firewire, HDCP (meaning I can't watch my purchased HD content on my MDP->DVI connection). Now this stupid limit on SATA in the new MacBook? It's bad =(

    Apple knows that hardware is already powerful enough on its entry level machines to be good enough for even the most demanding software (maybe not games, but software to make money with...), they are putting artificial limits on performance to justify upgrades.

    I do work with iPhone development, photography and .NET development through VMware. All on a MacBook...
     
  21. CoffeeWarrior macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #21
    My 3 month old Unibody Macbook had 3 Gigabit. Will be installing a SSD soon.

    It's hard to believe that Apple would do this. Could it be just a software issue ?
     
  22. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #22
    Today, sure. But SSD's are where flatscreen TVs were in 1999... give them a couple of years and the prices will be down to levels where mere mortals can afford to buy them in sixpacks.

    A Mac is quite the investment and people expect them to be relatively future proof. Upgrading from HDD to SSD after a couple of years would be a good way to keep a laptop alive a little longer.
     
  23. CoffeeWarrior macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #23
    How do you have 6 Gig of Ram in yours
     
  24. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #24
    i agree. however

    1) by the time they become mainstream, most people will be looking at new computers, esp laptops. Especially if we use your analogy with flatscreen tvs of it taking 10 years to be commonplace;)

    2)you will still see an upgrade in performance from switching to a ssd from a hdd even with a 1.5 connection. a 1.5 connection does not mean you cant use an ssd and see an improvement increase, which is the feeling i get from reading this thread

    as i said, its a poor move by apple for sure but this seems to be getting a bit exxagerated
     
  25. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #25
    Lol your signature is funny man.
     

Share This Page