Get the Air before its next redesign (whenever that is). It will get the Sandy Bridge treatment for sure, along with the Intel graphics. I have a Rev D and was intending to hold out for the Rev F (with Ivy Bridge), but if Thunderbolt takes off and the Rev E gets a decent version of the Core i5 or i7 I may reconsider.
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.
How exactly was this refresh an upgrade?
- Thread starter dnkbro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Get the Air before its next redesign (whenever that is). It will get the Sandy Bridge treatment for sure, along with the Intel graphics. I have a Rev D and was intending to hold out for the Rev F (with Ivy Bridge), but if Thunderbolt takes off and the Rev E gets a decent version of the Core i5 or i7 I may reconsider.
Just to put things into perspective, I'm typing this on a 2004 Powerbook G4 that still runs like a champ. I think I paid $1,500 with the student discount back then. I just ordered the base 13" MBP. I think I got a pretty good deal for $1,099. Less we forget the backlit keyboard that everyone had on their wish list.
Last edited:
Maybe. But some other whiner just like you would be posting threads about how there was no ODD.
The point is, Apple will never please everyone with any machine. So instead of whining, just accept that you'll never exactly what you want and either a) buy a Mac that best suits your needs, or b) buy a PC that fits your needs better than any existing Mac.
I definitely wouldn't dispute your argument, however, I think that there are many people here that would agree with my point of view. This was a controversial decision on Apple's part releasing these "upgraded" MacBook Pros that are so "unpro" it hurts.
There are also many people here who know nothing about computers. They regurgitate the rumors they hear from smarter, more informed people.
I think at this point you need to open a physics book and read about energy.
You want small, you get small. Heat has to go somewhere.
3dMark Vantage:
13" Macbook Pro HD 3000: 1281
13" Macbook Air 320M: 1543
This is your complaint? less than 300 points in vantage? The pluses of having i5/ i7 vs. Core 2 Duo dwarf the graphics power reduction. They are both equally lousy and these were tested with the same proc. You will be severely bottlenecked by your Air processor to even keep pace with the HD 3000 in most cases.
This.
Anybody who does not see this 2011 update as very good to great doesn't know anything about tech. Full stop. Yes the lineup has some quirks, but these are the best laptops Apple has ever shipped by a huge margin.
If you're looking for a 13" 2010 model, I just listed mine on eBay. It's the 2.66 CPU, and I added a 120GB OCZ Vertex 2 SSD to make things insanely fast. My 13" MBP
new updated HD isight camera
new updated processors
future proof thunderbolt
quad cores finally offered
battery life of my 2010 i7 mbp was around 4 1/2 hours real world, so if this one lasts the 7 hrs they claim in the real world test I'd be more than happy, ****, maybe I can get like 6 hrs... but damn do some people whine a lot... no one is forcing you to buy the laptops, wether or not you think the refresh was or was not an upgrade.
new updated processors
future proof thunderbolt
quad cores finally offered
battery life of my 2010 i7 mbp was around 4 1/2 hours real world, so if this one lasts the 7 hrs they claim in the real world test I'd be more than happy, ****, maybe I can get like 6 hrs... but damn do some people whine a lot... no one is forcing you to buy the laptops, wether or not you think the refresh was or was not an upgrade.
It's only a downgrade if you're from a planet where they've already invented the next best thing to the next best thing to a Core i5-i7 processor. At least Apple didn't install a 2.5 FLOPPY drive in the thing, then all the nattering nabobs would really have something to complain about.
Also, I find it funny that people want Apple to put an SSD into the machine when all that will do is make the price go up. I am SO glad Apple didn't go SSD, they overcharge for EVERYTHING, the damn computer is pricey enough as it is. I am more than happy to buy my own SSD and install it in my machine for cheaper than whatever Apple would come up with.
Also, I find it funny that people want Apple to put an SSD into the machine when all that will do is make the price go up. I am SO glad Apple didn't go SSD, they overcharge for EVERYTHING, the damn computer is pricey enough as it is. I am more than happy to buy my own SSD and install it in my machine for cheaper than whatever Apple would come up with.
And what if I'm just doing simple tasks such as surfing the web, watching videos on youtube, and occassionaly watching HD movies? The Air can handle those tasks with a higher resolution, smaller profile, and comparable battery life. Why would I buy the MBP with worse screen resolution and worse graphics performance?
That's one of the worst arguments I've read in a long time. "Anybody who disagrees with me doesn't know about tech." Really? That's sounds pretty convincing.
Doesn't solve my problem.
Really? What about the similar threads/responses that are all over these forums?
When an upgrade puts it on par with Mac Pro desktops - I don't see how these upgrades aren't worthwhile.
Solution? Don't buy a MacBook Pro 13" ... if you don't have the cash for the higher models - buy something else. Different strokes for different folks. No sense complaining - not going to change anything. Either make a decision and go forward with it.
Solution? Don't buy a MacBook Pro 13" ... if you don't have the cash for the higher models - buy something else. Different strokes for different folks. No sense complaining - not going to change anything. Either make a decision and go forward with it.
To the OP. You know you could always buy a refurbished 2010 13". They are a heck of a lot cheaper and they have your smashing Nvidia 320 gpu.
The 13" has always been an entry level pro machine. In fact specs wise it was about the same as the white MB. There have always been compromises with the 13" when it came to the gpu. The 9400 or the 320 were not the best gpu and across the board all three gpu's will have to play games at low to medium settings. Sure perhaps with some games the 320 could squeeze out a few more fps but really is it that big of a deal.
I also need to ask you why you insist on buying a MBP? It sounds like you love your PC desktop and find it to blow away most MP's at a much lower cost. So why not get a decent PC laptop? Dell has some Sandy Bridge based XPS laptops. They end up being around the same price but thats with a dedicated gpu and a higher res larger screen. Perhaps that would be a better option for you. Apple systems especially the laptops are always going to be priced higher. Thats just the way it is.
I like to look at the upgrade this way. In 2010 Final Cut Pro users who wanted a killer portable edit machine bought the highest 17" MBP they could get. They loved it. Now editors can buy a 13" that has the same level of edit and rendering performance for less then half the cost. I'm not sure what you consider an upgrade but equal performance for "pro" applications at half the price is a massive upgrade.
The 13" has always been an entry level pro machine. In fact specs wise it was about the same as the white MB. There have always been compromises with the 13" when it came to the gpu. The 9400 or the 320 were not the best gpu and across the board all three gpu's will have to play games at low to medium settings. Sure perhaps with some games the 320 could squeeze out a few more fps but really is it that big of a deal.
I also need to ask you why you insist on buying a MBP? It sounds like you love your PC desktop and find it to blow away most MP's at a much lower cost. So why not get a decent PC laptop? Dell has some Sandy Bridge based XPS laptops. They end up being around the same price but thats with a dedicated gpu and a higher res larger screen. Perhaps that would be a better option for you. Apple systems especially the laptops are always going to be priced higher. Thats just the way it is.
I like to look at the upgrade this way. In 2010 Final Cut Pro users who wanted a killer portable edit machine bought the highest 17" MBP they could get. They loved it. Now editors can buy a 13" that has the same level of edit and rendering performance for less then half the cost. I'm not sure what you consider an upgrade but equal performance for "pro" applications at half the price is a massive upgrade.
Pretty much. All of your reasons are crap, and it is clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Time to educate yourself before you play with the big boys, kiddo.
Hey, would you look at that. A bunch more people who have no idea what they're talking about. They are pretty common, you'll find. I build race cars for a living alongside my computer work, and you wouldn't believe the number of people who want a cold air intake. It's pretty hilarious, and very similar to what we see here.
I've tried to be rational with you folks, actually deploying the valid arguments. It didn't get me anywhere. If you don't want to think about it, I'm going to call you out on being the clueless tool that you are. Deal with it.
Build your own computer then, you'll be able to stuff all the specs in you want
I hear you can build em for $3.25 off newegg every part you need that will be faster than NASA computers. Adds death metal music automatically to your youtube gameplay complication videos.
Amazing stuff.
Okay, so there are four people who agree with you, and all five of you have started your own topic.
The 13" MacBook Pro is one of the best-selling laptops on the market. Apple can't remove the optical drive from a machine that sells that many units at this time - it would cost them too many sales.
With no ability to remove the optical drive, there's not room for a discrete GPU and its RAM - the logic board for the 13" is TINY.
So, your choices are 1) stick with the Core 2 Duo/320m combo, or 2) go with the Core i5/i7 and Intel integrated graphics. Those are your options - there is no third option. Last year, the Intel graphics would have hurt overall performance too much, so Apple went with the 320m for the best overall package. This year, the Intel graphics are good enough that, when combined with the benefit of switching to i5/i7, you get a better overall package.
Sorry that it's impossible to create a MacBook Pro that does everything you want it to in a package you're willing to carry. This update is a home run, across the board, and the few people who don't seem to understand that just aren't being the least bit realistic.
Lmao "very good to great." You sir, don't know anything about technology. I really don't know who you think you are.
The only thing that was compromised was the GPU which is around 15% slower. The screen resolution SHOULD have been upgraded but was not due to the HD 3000 probably choking at the resolution.
The only "great" thing would be the CPU upgrade, because the i5/i7 blows away the C2D.
Other than that, the update was just a refresh/speed bump, which would make the 2011 update for the 13"MBP decent.
For a "great" update, the screen res would be 1440x900. There would be at least the 8-16gb OS SSD standard for fast boot times, discrete GPU, etc.
So, please, get off your high horse as you sound like a complete *******.
No one is "forcing" you into buying anything, so please get over yourself.
If you feel you need the screen resolution and battery life, get an Air. If you need CPU power and onboard storage, get the MBP.
In short, make a decision, act on it, and shut up.
If you feel you need the screen resolution and battery life, get an Air. If you need CPU power and onboard storage, get the MBP.
In short, make a decision, act on it, and shut up.
It's ok if you don't think i5 sandybridges aren't much of an upgrade over core2duo cpus. Have fun having a youtube video take up half your cpu's processing power like it does on core2duo.
Apparently a 200% increase in processing power is not much of an upgrade though, oh well.
Because for whatever reason we're only supposed to keep new computers for only a couple months at a time, right?
Apparently a 200% increase in processing power is not much of an upgrade though, oh well.
Because for whatever reason we're only supposed to keep new computers for only a couple months at a time, right?
I am a PhD electrical engineer and you are straight up wrong. The way you test a battery can DRASTICALLY change the reported battery life. The difference between running a processor at near idle, how often you hit the hard drive, what peripherals you are running (Ethernet takes about half the power of wireless), screen brightness, etc add up to massive differences in power draw. Considering at idle these processors draw 12-13 watts, but at full load they draw 45W should be fairly telling.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/9 here are benchmarks that show the last generation 13" at 300 minutes for heavy web surfing with flash the same conditions they are testing the new computers at. 5 hours, yep 5 hours. The new sandy bridge tests in at nearly 416 minutes granted with a little extra battery capacity. Sooo you are empirically, undeniably, absolutely, and provably wrong.