How exactly was this refresh an upgrade?

[Evil Spoonman]

Lmao "very good to great." You sir, don't know anything about technology. I really don't know who you think you are.

I'm sorry I offended you by providing reasonable explanations and levelheaded rational analysis. I'll do my best to whip up a baseless mass hysteria for you next time.

The only thing that was compromised was the GPU which is around 15% slower.

That's not what the data is telling us. But I'll stop clouding the issue with facts.

The screen resolution SHOULD have been upgraded but was not due to the HD 3000 probably choking at the resolution.

You don't know that. Only Apple knows why the resolution wasn't upped, and they aren't saying. I'm betting there's a technical reason it was not upped. I do enjoy myself some more dots, but as it stands I wouldn't take the Air display over the 13" MBP's. If you can't possibly use a computer without a minimum resolution of 1440x900, I suggest you buy something else.

The only "great" thing would be the CPU upgrade, because the i5/i7 blows away the C2D.

Yes, I suppose roughly double the speed in tasks most people do every day is really not worth anything at all. Having a high-speed bus level I/O is super worthless. I mean really, why do we even use computers? I can't think of a good reason, let's go back to living in caves, it causes much less consternation.

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 *******.

Please take the following courses: engineering, physics, english, marketing. Then get back to me. Do it soon, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[impulse462]

I'm sorry I offended you by providing reasonable explanations and levelheaded rational analysis. I'll do my best to whip up a baseless mass hysteria for you next time.


That's not what the data is telling us. But I'll stop clouding the issue with facts.


You don't know that. Only Apple knows why the resolution wasn't upped, and they aren't saying. I'm betting there's a technical reason it was not upped. I do enjoy myself some more dots, but as it stands I wouldn't take the Air display over the 13" MBP's. If you can't possibly use a computer without a minimum resolution of 1440x900, I suggest you buy something else.


Yes, I suppose roughly double the speed in tasks most people do every day is really not worth anything at all. Having a high-speed bus level I/O is super worthless. I mean really, why do we even use computers? I can't think of a good reason, let's go back to living in caves, it causes much less consternation.


Please take the following courses: engineering, physics, english, marketing. Then get back to me. Do it soon, you're embarrassing yourself.

Lmfao you're telling me to take english when you typed this sentence, "Only Apple knows why the resolution wasn't upped, and they aren't saying." Please go expand your vocabulary.

Levelheaded RATIONAL explanation? Telling someone that thinks this isn't the best upgrade, which it isn't, that they know nothing about tech? How is that at all rational? What have you done thats so amazing? Anyone with pure knowledge of hardware internals of laptops, and computers in general, will tell you that other than the CPU and thunderbolt, NOTHING IS GREAT. People like you are the reason why people think the majority of apple users are sheep.

As for the 320M vs the HD 3000, benchmarks have shown the HD 3000 is on par with the 310M. the 310M is S-L-O-W-E-R than the 320M (probably not enough to notice in real world situations, but the performance should be noticeable in game). You mention "some technical" issue, right. Obviously I dont know the exact reason, but people with BRAINS, like to infer things, and this is a pretty accurate inference. Explain to me this "technical issue," which is a pretty broad term if you ask me. Unless you think just because Apple decisions are the words of God himself.

And also, that is my bad, I did forget to mention the Thunderbolt I/O as a major upgrade as well.

Keeping a PRO machine at a 1280x800 resolution is PATHETIC. Sure the MBP screen looks better (which may have been the reason they kept that screen) but by pure pixels its pretty small.

Does telling me to take classes that I have all taken make you feel better? Does it help you sleep at night? I called you out because in several posts you've acted as you're above people and that Apple's actions shouldn't be questioned.

The funny thing is, I agree with you that the update is decent, not GREAT, because it isn't GREAT, neither is it the best laptop that apple has put out. The story is a little different with the 15/17".

 

[Doors6767]

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.

No kidding!!! The high-end 15" 2.2 MPB rocks!! It's a no brainer. Great processor, great graphics the only thing I upgraded was to a high res screen. I can update hard drive and RAM later. I originally was going to get a 13"" model but when I saw that quad core, wasn't passing on that. I'm upgrading from a 2006 17" MBP so it's a fantastic upgrade.

 

[grahamnp]

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.

You don't know that for sure and it doesn't make sense anyway. The 17" 1920x1200 display runs on the HD3000 part of the time so it cannot be that anything higher than 1280x800 is choking the HD3000. No... you were all probably short-changed by Apple as usual.

 

[impulse462]

You don't know that for sure and it doesn't make sense anyway. The 17" 1920x1200 display runs on the HD3000 part of the time so it cannot be that anything higher than 1280x800 is choking the HD3000. No... you were all probably short-changed by Apple as usual.

Alright then, it was probably the quality of the displays. Doesn't change the fact that 1280x800 for a 1k+ prosumer laptop is pretty bad.

Doesn't also change the fact that the HD 3000 is slower (albeit not by much) than the 320M. They probably saw the huge CPU increase to be worth a slightly slower GPU, which I think was a positive thing.

Even though technologies such as OpenCL and GPGPU would require a better card. Does the HD 3000 even support OpenCL?

 

[Icy1007]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

The intel hd 3000 is built into the CPU unlike last years model. The HD 3000 is faster than the GeForce 320M in pretty much every way except for in games. Look at some benchmarks.

The only way someone got 9 hours on the arrandales was sitting at the desktop with low brightness doing nothing. The 2011 models are better in every way.

 

[dallas112678]

Has Apple used one of those memory erase things from Men In Black to confuse the entire world?

They "upgraded" these new MacBook Pros with a better processor and....

-Worse graphics card (13")
-Same low resolution (1280x800)
-Same HDD (70Gb difference is a joke)
-Same SuperDrive
-Worse battery life (Stricter tests aren't going to change things by 3 hours, this battery doesn't last as long)
-Thunderpants "HIGH SPEED I/O" which won't even be used until a few months done the line

And the worst crime of all: CHARGING THE SAME PRICE AS LAST GENERATION!

Is this is a joke? Why would ANYONE purchase this thing? This may have been the worst refresh of all time. Seriously. I had $1500 saved up in my account ready to pull the trigger and Apple failed so hard I'm considering boycotting their products. I guess this is what happens when you spend 90% of your resources building iToys. Apple is behind in everything they do. There are better computers out there for the price. There are better phones out there for the price.

So why on Earth would I want to buy this computer? A slightly better processor isn't worth a "downgrade" in every other area. I'd love for this "refresh" to blow up in Apple's face so they can eat crow and come out with a real MacBook "pro" in 6 months. I want an apology from Apple.

dnkbro

"And the worst crime of all: CHARGING THE SAME PRICE AS LAST GENERATION!"

Ummm, what did you expect? Apple isn't exactly known for lowering prices from generation to generation...

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Lmfao you're telling me to take english when you typed this sentence, "Only Apple knows why the resolution wasn't upped, and they aren't saying." Please go expand your vocabulary.

Oops, looks like I forgot an e. Upped. Happy now?

Levelheaded explanation? Telling someone that thinks this isn't the best upgrade, which it isn't, that they know nothing about tech? What have you done thats so amazing? Anyone with pure knowledge of hardware internals of laptops, and computers in general, will tell you that other than the CPU and thunderbolt, NOTHING IS GREAT. People like you are the reason why people think the majority of apple users are sheep.

You are one of a collection of obnoxious people who have shown up since these machines launched. You make a bunch of noise about how the machine was not designed just for you. Parrot and embellish the opinions of the hypercritical. It isn't constructive, it isn't enjoyable, it doesn't even make sense much of the time. I have spent quite a bit of my time painstakingly explaining my position, across many threads. It doesn't make a difference, there is always another clown out there with an uninformed opinion. I am critical of several things this launch, as I am with pretty much every Apple launch. None of those things are going to cause me to lose sleep, none of them alter the fact that these laptops are really very good indeed.

As for the 320M vs the HD 3000, benchmarks have shown the HD 3000 is on par with the 310M. the 310M is S-L-O-W-E-R than the 320M (probably not enough to notice in real world situations).

Show me your data. I've been following Sandy Bridge since Intel announced it. Even in the pre-release stages the on-die IGP was showing a lot of promise. Almost all of the data I have seen points to the HD 3000 trading blows with the 320M. There are a lot of unknowns in the actual behavior and performance of this new chip and its drivers, so give it time before you start forming ignorant and decisive opinions.

You mention "some technical" issue, right. Obviously I dont know the exact reason, but people with BRAINS, like to infer things, and this is a pretty accurate inference. Explain to me this "technical issue," which is a pretty broad term if you ask me. Unless you think just because Apple decisions are the words of God himself.

MacBook Air shows substantially worse gamut, viewing angle, and contrast than the 13" MBP. It is quite plausible that Apple deemed the additional resolution not worth the loss in screen quality. I agree with this logic. I see 1280x800 as "enough" for a 13" notebook, and would rather have the nicer screen (I'd rather have 1440x900 AND a nicer screen, but we can't win all our battles). Do I know if that's actually what happened? No, I do not. It could be marketing. The point is, you don't know either… and you're acting like you do.

Keeping a PRO machine at a 1280x800 resolution is PATHETIC. Sure the MBP screen is better (looks better), but by pure pixels its pretty small.

So you admit that it looks better, but it is small? Small by what standards? Here are a couple of common small notebooks by screen size, resolution, pixel count, and PPI.

Thinkpad T410
14.1" Standard - 1280x768 (983,040, 105 ppi)

Inspiron 14R
14.1" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 111 ppi)

MacBook Pro
13.3" Standard - 1280x800 (1,024,000, 113 ppi)

Pavilion dm3t
13.3" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 118 ppi)


Based on this information, it seems that rather than pathetic the 13" MacBook Pro is merely average. There are common machines both above and below it. The difference between 1366x768 and 1280x800 is a mere 2.4%. Just for a bit of fun, here's a few more entries:

MacBook Pro
15.4" Standard - 1440x900 (1,296,000, 110 ppi)
15.4" HighRes - 1680x1050 (1,764,000, 128 ppi)
17" Standard - 1920x1200 (2,304,000, 133 ppi)

MacBook Air
11.6" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 135 ppi)
13.3" Standard/MBP Hypothetical - 1440x900 (1,296,000, 128 ppi)

A highres 13.3" MBP looks like it'd be nice. Is it the end of the world, is it pathetic, is it monumentally horrendous? Doesn't appear to be.

Does telling me to take classes that I have all taken make you feel better? Does it help you sleep at night? I called you out because in several posts you've acted as you're above people and that Apple's actions shouldn't be questioned.

Actually I don't care what classes you take. You don't seem to understand very much though, so educating yourself would probably help. You didn't call me out, you made a fool of yourself. Believe it or not, some people are a lot smarter than you. Including the people who create and market these computers. Criticism is easy, understanding is hard. Ignorant people take the easy way out.

 

[Pink∆Floyd]

I really enjoy reading these kinds of threads.

Are you kidding me OP?

 

[impulse462]

Oops, looks like I forgot an e. Upped. Happy now?


You are one of a collection of obnoxious people who have shown up since these machines launched. You make a bunch of noise about how the machine was not designed just for you. Parrot and embellish the opinions of the hypercritical. It isn't constructive, it isn't enjoyable, it doesn't even make sense much of the time. I have spent quite a bit of my time painstakingly explaining my position, across many threads. It doesn't make a difference, there is always another clown out there with an uninformed opinion. I am critical of several things this launch, as I am with pretty much every Apple launch. None of those things are going to cause me to lose sleep, none of them alter the fact that these laptops are really very good indeed.


Show me your data. I've been following Sandy Bridge since Intel announced it. Even in the pre-release stages the on-die IGP was showing a lot of promise. Almost all of the data I have seen points to the HD 3000 trading blows with the 320M. There are a lot of unknowns in the actual behavior and performance of this new chip and its drivers, so give it time before you start forming ignorant and decisive opinions.


MacBook Air shows substantially worse gamut, viewing angle, and contrast than the 13" MBP. It is quite plausible that Apple deemed the additional resolution not worth the loss in screen quality. I agree with this logic. I see 1280x800 as "enough" for a 13" notebook, and would rather have the nicer screen (I'd rather have 1440x900 AND a nicer screen, but we can't win all our battles). Do I know if that's actually what happened? No, I do not. It could be marketing. The point is, you don't know either… and you're acting like you do.


So you admit that it looks better, but it is small? Small by what standards? Here are a couple of common small notebooks by screen size, resolution, pixel count, and PPI.

Thinkpad T410
14.1" Standard - 1280x768 (983,040, 105 ppi)

Inspiron 14R
14.1" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 111 ppi)

MacBook Pro
13.3" Standard - 1280x800 (1,024,000, 113 ppi)

Pavilion dm3t
13.3" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 118 ppi)


Based on this information, it seems that rather than pathetic the 13" MacBook Pro is merely average. There are common machines both above and below it. Just for a bit of fun, here's a few more entries:

MacBook Pro
15.4" Standard - 1440x900 (1,296,000, 110 ppi)
15.4" HighRes - 1680x1050 (1,764,000, 128 ppi)
17" Standard - 1920x1200 (2,304,000, 133 ppi)

MacBook Air
11.6" Standard - 1366x768 (1,049,088, 135 ppi)
13.3" Standard/MBP Hypothetical - 1440x900 (1,296,000, 128 ppi)

A highres 13.3" MBP looks like it'd be nice. Is it the end of the world, is it pathetic, is it monumentally horrendous? Doesn't appear to be.


Actually I don't care what classes you take. You don't seem to understand very much though, so educating yourself would probably help. You didn't call me out, you made a fool of yourself. Believe it or not, some people are a lot smarter than you. Including the people who create and market these computers. Criticism is easy, understanding is hard. Ignorant people take the easy way out.

Right I already said earlier in this thread that the screen was probably kept because of the higher quality display. Doesn't change the fact that the MBA 13" still has a higher resolution display. And no I'm not acting like I do know their reasoning, specifically by the fact that I say "Obviously I don't know..." Did you read my post?
And if the screen resolution is average it should not be labeled a Pro machine.

I suggest you read this: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html
as well as read this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1102579/

And am I really obnoxious? I'm not even the market for this computer. I'm just interested in these sorts of things. I never said the machine was or wasn't designed for me. Facts are facts. The HD 3000 is slower than the 320M. By a very small margin. But it is still slower. Again, it is not my opinion that RIGHT NOW the HD 3000 is SLOWER than the 320M, it is a fact. Are the drivers mature? No. Will they get there. Probably. But as of now they are not.

I agree that this is a good laptop which got decently upgraded. You can not say it was a great upgrade when the GPU was compromised. No matter what the GPU, the 13" will continue to sell because the normal consumer couldn't care less about it.

You are the one who personally attacked me saying I "don't know anything" which is very wrong, while thinking that you know everything. My problem was the fact that you act like an insufferable know-it-all and that everyone else is stupid. You mentioning that I should take classes shows that you can't have a "level-headed" or "rational" argument. To do that you'd have to stick with facts which I did, while addressing your conceitedness. My opinion is not uninformed, yet you think it is, due to your conceitedness. The point is that YOU think you are smarter than everyone, when in fact, saying that an opinion is "ignorant" is the most ignorant statement you have said. A lot of people are smarter than you. Suck it up. I never said I was smarter than anyone who is designing and making these computers. Again you are writing these things and pulling things out of your ass. All you have done is personally attack me when I have said that the upgrade is decent, not great.

Infact, I do understand a lot more than what you think I do. The only opinion I am making is that the 2011 13"MBP is a decent upgrade, not a great upgrade like you previously mentioned. I am not complaining how the machine doesn't fit in my life etc. I simply stated that while the GPU was slightly downgraded, there was a decent upgrade. You're saying I shouldn't criticize? If i spend this much money on a computer, I should be getting my moneys worth. Now I can't criticize apple's computers? Money doesn't grow on trees. Ill criticize anything I want if I have to spend money I earned on it.

 

[djasterix]

You can get one of these perhaps from Dell, costs only $1440, it's cheaper than the 13" 2.7 ghz MBP. ( perhaps Asus has some nice laptops too )

i7-2720m 2.2 ghz Quad Core i7 ( same as CPU as the $2500 MBP )
8gb DDR3 Ram ( alot more ram than any MBP )
640 gb 7200 RPM HDD
blu ray
91 WH battery ( more battery capacity than any MBP )
3 gb GT 555m ( it's better than the ATI 6750 )

Or save some money and get the 15"

Try to resell that thing for half the price in 3 years... if it's still in one piece...

 

[Evil Spoonman]

Right I already said earlier in this thread that the screen was probably kept because of the higher quality display. Doesn't change the fact that the MBA 13" still has a higher resolution display. And no I'm not acting like I do know their reasoning, specifically by the fact that I say "Obviously I don't know..." Did you read my post?
And if the screen resolution is average it should not be labeled a Pro machine.

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.

Keeping a PRO machine at a 1280x800 resolution is PATHETIC. Sure the MBP screen looks better (which may have been the reason they kept that screen) but by pure pixels its pretty small.

Notice the way your argument changes as you get challenged?

Infact, I do understand a lot more than what you think I do. The only opinion I am making is that the 2011 13"MBP is a decent upgrade, not a great upgrade like you previously mentioned. I am not complaining how the machine doesn't fit in my life etc. I simply stated that while the GPU was slightly downgraded, there was a decent upgrade.

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.

Once again some re-twisting words.

And am I really obnoxious? I'm not even the market for this computer. I'm just interested in these sorts of things. I never said the machine was or wasn't designed for me. Facts are facts. The HD 3000 is slower than the 320M. By a very small margin. But it is still slower. Again, it is not my opinion that RIGHT NOW the HD 3000 is SLOWER than the 320M, it is a fact. Are the drivers mature? No. Will they get there. Probably. But as of now they are not.

I agree that this is a good laptop which got decently upgraded. You can not say it was a great upgrade when the GPU was compromised. No matter what the GPU, the 13" will continue to sell because the normal consumer couldn't care less about it.

Did you actually read the sources you cited?

"The Intel graphics delivers 20.9 fps on average at high graphics settings (1366x768, DX10, high) and is placed on a level of the Geforce 320M"
"[the HD 3000] falls only slightly behind the Geforce 320M (15 fps)."
"In comparison the Intel 3000 graphics solution again ranks in front of the Geforce 320M"

L4D
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 51
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 48

SC2
Medium Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 41
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 39

"In our test we also noticed that some games did not run faultless on the Intel HD 3000 graphics. Obviously, software updates, which will hopefully be available in form of driver updates soon, are necessary here."

Seems to me like things are pretty back and forth. Under Windows we are seeing the HD 3000 come away with more losses. Overall, right now the HD 3000 does appear to be a little slower… but people don't own their computers for just a month or two. Certainly we cannot make any definitive statements on which is actually faster. Which you seem intent on doing:

As for the 320M vs the HD 3000, benchmarks have shown the HD 3000 is on par with the 310M. the 310M is S-L-O-W-E-R than the 320M

The only thing that was compromised was the GPU which is around 15% slower.

I am the furthest thing from an Apple zealot. In fact I came from UNIX + Windows systems. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and inflammatory pedantic criticism. I do apologize if I come off like a giant jerk, but you haven't been very helpful in amending my perception of you. Would you like to try again? This time I will not be a conceited impatient know-it-all, and you should try very best to not be an ignorant obnoxious hellion. Yes?

 

[dnkbro]

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.

Actually, my reasons aren't crap, they are valid arguments. You, on the other hand, have resorted to name calling. Not cool. Also, just because others don't agree with you doesn't mean they "have no idea what they're talking about."

 

[dnkbro]

Build your own computer then, you'll be able to stuff all the specs in you want

I already did that. I'm using it to type this message. That doesn't stop me from wanting/needing a laptop for work and school that I can carry around with me. Unfortunately, the 13" MBP refresh was so disappointing that I'm stuck in limbo.

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.

They could have given us the option to take out the optical drive and replace it with an SSD. They could have given us an option by making the high-end 13" have dedicated graphics instead of the SSD. They could have done a number of things. This update wasn't a home run. Charging people $1200-$1500 for a laptop with a 1280x800 screen resolution is not hitting a home run. I wouldn't even be mad if Apple decided to charge people extra for a higher resolution screen, similar to the way they do on the 15". I would be happy to pay $1199 plus an extra $99 for a 1440x900 screen.

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.

That benchmark isn't comparing the new 2011 13" MBP battery life versus the 2010 13" MBP battery life. The tests have yet to be determined. I completely respect your input as well as your technological knowledge in this field. In any case, I'll let the real benchmarks speak for themselves.

 

[seong]

.....
Seriously.....
To people who is writing some crap **** about having a worse GPU & Battery life:
I bet you were those who were like "oh, why didn't the 13" get Intel's i series processor? oh, why didn't Apple have a bigger hard drive, because it's the same as the Macbook?"
Really? C'mon people. Everyone knew that this wasn't a major upgrade.

Although for 2009&2010 MBP were advertised to run 10 hours, in real life, it only ran around 6 hours (as many of us have pointed out.) So, it was reasonable for Apple to make it 7 hours, so that their products aren't falsely advertised.

GPU? It's a 13" laptop. Of course you can give examples of Alienware and Dell laptops with discrete graphics, but do those laptops have the same aesthetics? How long do those laptops last? 1 or 2 years before you have to upgrade to a new one? Just remember that you can't everything you want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you are going to complain about it, do it on some random PC forum, not on Macrumors.

Oh, I forgot about the resolution.
Do all 13" laptops have 1440x900 resolution? No. There is always a trade off.

Again, remember that this wasn't even a MAJOR REFRESH for MBPs. If it was, Apple would have held some event for it.
End of conversation.

 

[bossmanjunior]

get a 15"