How exactly was this refresh an upgrade?

[alust2013]

I've NEVER heard of a product that gets "upgraded" in some areas and stays the same/gets worse in other areas. That's a serious no-no. For Apple to overlook key areas (read: battery life, graphics processors) while upgrading their products from last year's iteration, shows just how little they care about their consumers as well as their notebook line. They have shifted all their focus and resources to iProducts.

Wasn't that exactly what happened last time? Processors, I/O, HDDs, screen all stayed the same. Only things that changed were GPU and battery life, and standard RAM on the base model. Just because Apple didn't make it to your exact specification doesn't mean they don't care about the customers. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[dnkbro]

It's not like Apple was unwilling to sell you the 2010 model last April. You chose to wait, but unfortunately it wasn't the upgrade you were hoping for. Apple has always used integrated graphics in the 13" so if you were expecting a dedicated GPU then you shouldn't have been. And Intel won't allow anyone to make third party integrated GPU solutions for their iX processors.

It's completely unacceptable to put slower (regardless of how small the difference is) hardware in the next iteration of your product. At least have something that is equivalent. Do you honestly think the average consumer is going to walk up and say, "well since Intel doesn't allow 3rd parties to make an IGP for their new processors, Apple is totally cool with providing a computer with slower graphics capabilities!" No. All they are going to hear is that the computer is slower than the one before it, which is absolutely absurd.

Wasn't that exactly what happened last time? Processors, I/O, HDDs, screen all stayed the same. Only things that changed were GPU and battery life, and standard RAM on the base model. Just because Apple didn't make it to your exact specification doesn't mean they don't care about the customers. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

-CPU
-GPU
-Battery
-Ram

The main 4 components were upgraded.

In this iteration we got:

-Better CPU

-Same ram

-Worse GPU
-Worse Battery

This refresh was way worse.

 

[LoganT]

It's completely unacceptable to put slower (regardless of how small the difference is) hardware in the next iteration of your product. At least have something that is equivalent. Do you honestly think the average consumer is going to walk up and say, "well since Intel doesn't allow 3rd parties to make an IGP for their new processors, Apple is totally cool with providing a computer with slower graphics capabilities!" No. All they are going to hear is that the computer is slower than the one before it, which is absolutely absurd.

What do you expect Apple to do? How do you expect them to fit a dedicated GPU in the 13" MBP?

 

[McGiord]

Wait after Lion gets out there and the TB gets out there.
Save a little more for the 15" meanwhile, and they will release a new model afterwards.
I bought a late 2008, and a few months after they released improved models, so if the current new ones are not satisfying your needs either wait or buy something else.

 

[dnkbro]

What do you expect Apple to do? How do you expect them to fit a dedicated GPU in the 13" MBP?

Take out the SuperDrive. Give people the option of purchasing an external one. Hell, do it for the high end 13" if you're worried about the average consumer needing the ODD.

 

[wordoflife]

upgrade
verb |ˈəpˌgrād; ˌəpˈgrād| [ trans. ]
raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components : the cost of upgrading each workstation is around $300 | [as adj. ] ( upgraded) upgraded computers.
• raise (an employee) to a higher grade or rank.

It is an upgrade.

 

[Davichi]

Why don't you get a job at apple and show them the way how they can fit dedicated GPU on 13 MBP with optical drive and Hard drive inside?

Steve jobs already said there will be an intel processor chip with intel GPU as long as they go in sandy bridge. Everyone said sandy bridge, sandy bridge, and sandy bridge. There. It happened. So, what is the problem now?

Battery life maybe worse, but by how much?

I have 13 inch MBP from 2010 and battery doesn't last 10 hours. It's more like 6-7 hours. Sometimes, it's even less.

Take out optical Drive? What? Tell that to those million Netflix users who still rent DVDs in mail. Tell that to those people who still burn music on their CDs and burn their movies on DVDs. Optical drive will go away, but not with this update. It's too soon.

Same ram? That tells you really don't know what you are talking about. It's faster ram.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

 

[mark28]

-CPU
-GPU
-Battery
-Ram

The main 4 components were upgraded.

In this iteration we got:

-Better CPU

-Same ram

-Worse GPU
-Worse Battery

This refresh was way worse.

RAM speed has increased. So what if it has a worse GPU, it's still fine for most people.

It has an i5 or i7 Sandy Bridge CPU, that is a pretty good upgrade.

Let's wait for some benchmarks to see how the battery life really is or perhaps some user reports.

 

[vipergts2207]

It's completely unacceptable to put slower (regardless of how small the difference is) hardware in the next iteration of your product. At least have something that is equivalent. Do you honestly think the average consumer is going to walk up and say, "well since Intel doesn't allow 3rd parties to make an IGP for their new processors, Apple is totally cool with providing a computer with slower graphics capabilities!" No. All they are going to hear is that the computer is slower than the one before it, which is absolutely absurd.

Well seeing as how the average consumer doesn't even know what an IGP is, they'll walk into the Apple store and buy it anyway.

Apple only had 2 options:

1. Use Intel's IGP
2. Remove the ODD and put in a dedicated GPU.

They went with the first, for whatever reason.

 

[alust2013]

-CPU
-GPU
-Battery
-Ram

The main 4 components were upgraded.

In this iteration we got:

-Better CPU

-Same ram

-Worse GPU
-Worse Battery

This refresh was way worse.

You're really counting last refresh as a better CPU? It was a bump of 160MHz each. That is pretty close to nothing.

Please enlighten me as to how Apple could have put a better GPU with the SB processors. Sure, remove the optical drive. However, the average consumer still uses the optical drive, and in fact, I use it myself. The 13" "pro" is really not aimed at pros. It's aimed at the average consumer. And seriously, who buys a 13" notebook for gaming, not to mention it being a Mac.

It's the exact same battery, and unless you want it thicker or know of some magical battery type that Apple didn't, a better battery wasn't going to happen. I know several people with the old model and they get 8 hours max. So possibly an hour difference, likely less overall.

 

[AAPLaday]

The 13" Pro is the new MacBook

 

[dnkbro]

Why don't you get a job at apple and show them the way how they can fit dedicated GPU on 13 MBP with optical drive and Hard drive inside?

Steve jobs already said there will be an intel processor chip with intel GPU as long as they go in sandy bridge. Everyone said sandy bridge, sandy bridge, and sandy bridge. There. It happened. So, what is the problem now?

Battery life maybe worse, but by how much?

I have 13 inch MBP from 2010 and battery doesn't last 10 hours. It's more like 6-7 hours. Sometimes, it's even less.

Take out optical Drive? What? Tell that to those million Netflix users who still rent DVDs in mail. Tell that to those people who still burn music on their CDs and burn their movies on DVDs. Optical drive will go away, but not with this update. It's too soon.

Same ram? That tells you really don't know what you are talking about. It's faster ram.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

The difference between 1333 and 1066 is only noticeable in benchmarks. I built the computer I'm thinking this message on. I know computers. The battery life is less, get over it. I remember people posting that they got 9 hours battery life with the Arrandales. I even posted in one of those topics (see my posting history). Taking out the SuperDrive on the high end would be that big of a deal. Consumers are more likely to purchase the low end version anyway. If they really wanted the higher end version, an external SuperDrive option could be there.

And for your information, I won't be buying this new MacBook Pro even though I had $1500 saved up to get it.

RAM speed has increased. So what if it has a worse GPU, it's still fine for most people.

It has an i5 or i7 Sandy Bridge CPU, that is a pretty good upgrade.

Let's wait for some benchmarks to see how the battery life really is or perhaps some user reports.

Again a downgrade in GPU performance doesn't make up for the natural progression to 1333 MHz ram. Real world differences are negligible.

 

[LoganT]

As much as I and a lot of other people would like Apple to remove the ODD to put in a dedicated GPU, more consumers would complain more about the missing ODD then the Intel graphics.

 

[KPOM]

It's completely unacceptable to put slower (regardless of how small the difference is) hardware in the next iteration of your product. At least have something that is equivalent. Do you honestly think the average consumer is going to walk up and say, "well since Intel doesn't allow 3rd parties to make an IGP for their new processors, Apple is totally cool with providing a computer with slower graphics capabilities!" No. All they are going to hear is that the computer is slower than the one before it, which is absolutely absurd.

No, they will hear that the CPU is twice as fast as the one that was in the previous MacBook Pro, which is true.

 

[dnkbro]

Well seeing as how the average consumer doesn't even know what an IGP is, they'll walk into the Apple store and buy it anyway.

Apple only had 2 options:

1. Use Intel's IGP
2. Remove the ODD and put in a dedicated GPU.

They went with the first, for whatever reason.

Again, Apple is charging $1500 for the high end 13" MacBook Pro. Integrated graphics on a $1500 machine? 1280x800 on a $1500 machine?

 

[MaxMike]

Well I've been waiting for an upgrade like this mainly because:

1) The processor is a true quad core, not just some dual-core with hyperthreading.

2) Both graphics cards are an improvement. The integrated are now better than the NVIDIA 9400M in my Mac mini, and the new AMD Radeon has 4x the VRAM as the old 330M.

3) Yes, Thunderbolt isn't adopted yet, but it is developed by Intel, not by Apple as FireWire has been. Thunderbolt can be built into many other systems and be adopted as a better alternative to USB 3. I have tons of video files and the faster the connected storage the better.

Of course small reasons such as a larger hard drive and other factors just made it a great computer to buy.

 

[dnkbro]

No, they will hear that the CPU is twice as fast as the one that was in the previous MacBook Pro, which is true.

And that the GPU is slower, the battery life is worse, the computer boots slower than the MacBook air, the screen resolution is worse than the air...

 

[derbothaus]

And that the GPU is slower, the battery life is worse, the computer boots slower than the MacBook air, the screen resolution is worse than the air...

You are very uninformed friend. The 6750 is quite a bit faster than the 330 in the previous models. Look here for processor upgrade:

Cinebench 32-bit r10.
640M 2.8GHz i-7: 3727
New 2.3GHz i7 SB: 14900

I call that a HUGE upgrade.
All you need to fix the boot is to buy an SSD so you can "Macbook Air" it.

 

[dnkbro]

You are very uninformed friend. The 6750 is quite a bit faster than the 330 in the previous models. Look here for processor upgrade:

Cinebench 32-bit r10.
640M 2.8GHz i-7: 3727
New 2.3GHz i7 SB: 14900

I call that a HUGE upgrade.
All you need to fix the boot is to buy an SSD so you can "Macbook Air" it.

That would be fine and dandy if the 13" MBP actually had the 6750 in it. You're talking about a $2200 machine. I'm talking about the 13".

 

[vipergts2207]

Again, Apple is charging $1500 for the high end 13" MacBook Pro. Integrated graphics on a $1500 machine? 1280x800 on a $1500 machine?

I'll give you that, there's a definite lack of value in the high-end 13", especially when compared to the 15". $300 gets you a 2" larger screen, higher resolution, a dedicated GPU and a quad core processor. If someone was wanting a 13" I would definitely recommend the low-end 13". The only thing upgrading to the high-end 13" gets you is .4GHz and a little bigger hard for $300. The $300 towards the 15" gets you a lot more bang for your buck.

 

[derbothaus]

Fine than look at it this way, A 15" MBP that used to cost 3000.00 is now bested by a 13" MBP for 1499.00. Sounds good to me. If you are stuck in the 13" form factor you will always be slower than the rest on larger machines and towers. Get a 3rd party SSD (They'll be faster than Apples anyway) The MBP destroys the MBA if it had an SSD. And the graphics... If you thought the previous 13" graphics were good than I am sorry. All the 13" graphics have sucked. Doesn't matter which sucks the worst as they are all unusable for that. That is not why you buy them. Get a tower if you want fantastic graphic power.

 

[wrightc23]

If you want games don't buy a small, lightweight 13" notebook with integrated graphics....

It's a noticeable bump for me nothing more. Given how packed the Apple store was earlier with new MBP's of all shapes and sizes flying off the shelves i doubt Apple care.

For the 13", on the plus side:

Larger HDD
Substantially faster CPU
Thunderpants
Faster RAM

Bad side:

Still 1280x800
Weaker GPU

For gamers a big loss, stick with your 2010 or pick up a refurb. For everyone else it's a gain.

Personally I would have created a new base model out of the 2010 MBP with Core 2 and nVidia 320 to keep everyone happy but that just wan't going to happen.

As for the battery, they are substantial revised tests and Apples claims have always been bogus. I doubt the new MBP will get 7 hours just as I rarely got beyond 4 hours on the 2010 MBP so I doubt there is much difference.

 

[pjcforpres2020]

So lets get this straight:

Faster CPU, faster RAM, better HDD, light peak, and it isn't an upgrade why?

Oh yeah, it has a marginally slower GPU, but according to you something being marginally faster doesn't matter (re: your argument against the RAM upgrade) What would you be saying if it still had a C2D? Sounds like you didn't like that option, given that you sat around waiting to buy this refresh. Oh, they have the same screen resolution too... whoop dee doo!

If you think the MBA is sooooo much better, then get it! Have fun with your 1.4Ghz C2D processor while others recognize the 13" MBP for what it is, a computer for professional level processing (13" is the entry level to that arena, BTW).

 

[wrightc23]

I'll give you that, there's a definite lack of value in the high-end 13", especially when compared to the 15". $300 gets you a 2" larger screen, higher resolution, a dedicated GPU and a quad core processor. If someone was wanting a 13" I would definitely recommend the low-end 13". The only thing upgrading to the high-end 13" gets you is .4GHz and a little bigger hard for $300. The $300 towards the 15" gets you a lot more bang for your buck.

Yep that's the conclusion I ended up reaching. In the UK the gap between base and top spec 13" is over $400 for 0.4ghz and 1mb cache in what is essentially the same CPU. That extra $300 buys you a very nice SSD and 8gb RAM which would have a much bigger impact on your system.

 

[dnkbro]

I feel like I'm being forced into buying the Air because of the screen resolution on the MBP. I have a custom built i7 920 desktop at home with an ATI 5870, 6gb ram, blu-ray reader, etc. I need a portable laptop for school/work. Battery life and screen resolution were highest on my list. With no option to even upgrade from the base 1280x800, I find myself looking at the air regardless of the weak processor.