I don't see how the 13" is in anyway a 'slow' computer

[fitto13]

For the people contemplating it...

Just thought I'd chime in on my base 13" MBP.

Seriously, this thing is awesome.

Atm,
I have 8 tabs open in safari,
iTunes playing music
A movie encoding in handbrake
A dvd ripping in mactheripper
About 10GB movies transferring from my old external HHD to my new one....
Has external monitor plugged in, magic mouse, bluetooth keyboard, audio and the two external HDD's mentioned.

AND it still hasn't shown any signs of lagging whatsoever. I also added watching a movie in Plex whilst performing the above and there was no choppiness at all.

This thing is a great computer, really.

Just out of interest - what would the i5's and above be useful for?
Are they better for photo/video/music editing?

 

[Intell]

I don't view any computer made in 2007 or later as slow.
My Blackbook does roughly that same amount of stuff almost weekly. Yet it rarely shows any sign of being a slug.

 

[j3yq]

I would call it slow to say, but in specs slower than others, still a very fast and strong Mac.

 

[jmdMac]

People who are calling it "slow" are the ones who would rather have see an i3 CPU in it, and have it dogged down from an intelHD GPU....

But in reality, the 2010 13" mbp in NICE! I had a very hard time deciding between mine(see sig) and the 13". In the end, the only reason I went with the 15" was the extra screen real-estate, which has come in very handy with some engineering programs.

 

[scaredpoet]

My 3-year old MBP was equally as good. Macs tend to be pretty durable at what they do.

 

[DeusInvictus7]

Any computer within the past few years can do what you're doing, the benefit of the 15in is obviously the larger screen and paired with the antiglare and high res (the one I chose), it makes for a huge upgrade from what I used to be working with, a late 2008 aluminum MacBook.

Honestly though, my old MacBook was as powerful as I'd ever need a computer to be, but this time around I wanted to get the best that I could afford, and it was the only antiglare model they had in store, since I didn't want to order it since I needed the computer quick.

The i5 and i7, like any other processor upgrade, just make your computer quicker at doing what it needs to do. The C2D are still quick processors, they are just a bit dated when it comes to what's out on the market now.

 

[The Final Cut]

even the new 13 macbook is almost more powerful than my high end macbook pro (the last gen right before the unibody switch) which is amazing

 

[taylermatt42146]

All good points, and if you put the history of macs into the mix they're even faster. Before macs used intel processors, they used Power PC(which were considerably slower). Because of this Apple has to base their entire operating system on the hardware they had at the time, but they didn't want to compromise the overall quality.

So, they ended up making an operating system that wasn't very demanding, and would perform very well under those restrictions. Now with Intel processors, Apple is still using pretty much the same operating system (OSX).

Which means, when you compare it to "faster computers" (excluding macs), the result is usually that the Mac would outperform most computers.

 

[jjahshik32]

For the people contemplating it...

Just thought I'd chime in on my base 13" MBP.

Seriously, this thing is awesome.

Atm,
I have 8 tabs open in safari,
iTunes playing music
A movie encoding in handbrake
A dvd ripping in mactheripper
About 10GB movies transferring from my old external HHD to my new one....
Has external monitor plugged in, magic mouse, bluetooth keyboard, audio and the two external HDD's mentioned.

AND it still hasn't shown any signs of lagging whatsoever. I also added watching a movie in Plex whilst performing the above and there was no choppiness at all.

This thing is a great computer, really.

Just out of interest - what would the i5's and above be useful for?
Are they better for photo/video/music editing?

I totally agree with you. I have the same base model 13" macbook pro (I just sold my 17" i7 2.66GHz MBP and pocketed the extra cash) and I do basically the same thing I've done on my i7 mbp and I dont notice any difference.

I actually do more than what you mentioned on your usages and with 9 spaces. I also agree that watching 15GB mkv files on the plex player does not show any choppiness or slow down the frames whatsoever on the 320m nvidia gpu. I just returned a mac mini because it couldnt handle a bluray movie under plex (frames dropping in fast scenes) but this 13" mbp with the 320m has no trouble whatsoever. If anything I dont see any difference from the i7 + 330m.

I believe that this generations 13" mbp has the best bang for buck ratio! Especially when I bought it from microcenter for $999 (deal is still there!).

 

[tkermit]

All good points, and if you put the history of macs into the mix they're even faster. Before macs used intel processors, they used Power PC(which were considerably slower). Because of this Apple has to base their entire operating system on the hardware they had at the time, but they didn't want to compromise the overall quality.

So, they ended up making an operating system that wasn't very demanding, and would perform very well under those restrictions. Now with Intel processors, Apple is still using pretty much the same operating system (OSX).

Which means, when you compare it to "faster computers" (excluding macs), the result is usually that the Mac would outperform most computers.

Nice little story you made up there. You really believe that?

 

[Intell]

Nice little story you made up there. You really believe that?

He fell for the megahertz myth.

 

[oplix]

I rather have a 2.4 core 2 duo than a 2.1 i3. The reason being is gaming. In most games CPU frequency scales the best in terms of performance.

I love my 13". It's awesome for portability and battery life. When I feel like playing games (which it does very well), i simply reboot into windows 7 with some hassle free overclocking and away I go.

Really happy I made the purchase.

 

[Jeeg]

I would say my 13" 2010 MBP is faster than my Phenom II desktop, i7 desktop and my Vaio Z in the everyday normal usage.

However, gaming and anything more intensive is another story.

 

[robotmonkey]

It's not slow. If you put in a 8 gb of ram and if you're rich an ssd, it'll SCREAM.

 

[nexus14]

benchmarks say otherwise (also, it's not always about the benchmarks)

 

[Thunder82]

I rather have a 2.4 core 2 duo than a 2.1 i3. The reason being is gaming. In most games CPU frequency scales the best in terms of performance.

I keep reading this over and over trying to make sense of it.. but, it just doesn't make any sense. Nice attempt at making something up though.

 

[DesmoPilot]

All good points, and if you put the history of macs into the mix they're even faster. Before macs used intel processors, they used Power PC(which were considerably slower). Because of this Apple has to base their entire operating system on the hardware they had at the time, but they didn't want to compromise the overall quality.

So, they ended up making an operating system that wasn't very demanding, and would perform very well under those restrictions. Now with Intel processors, Apple is still using pretty much the same operating system (OSX).

Which means, when you compare it to "faster computers" (excluding macs), the result is usually that the Mac would outperform most computers.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

[stefan1975]

I have been one complaining about the 2010 MBP13 here in these forums. However my issues are not with it's (current) speed. I know currently it will run almost anything you will throw at it (safe gaming and high-res video editing). What i have "against" it is more or less the following:

*) paying a 2010 premium price for a 2007 CPU (especially the 2.66 model). I know it's fast but it's also cheap, so why didn't they lower the price accordingly (it's $25 now even without bulk purchases)
*) resell value, the last C2D model before EOL will most likely decrease in value faster then core iX models
*) it runs everything okay now, but i want to use it for 4 years. Then the P8600 will be 7 years old, that is like running a P-III now. Let's try running CS7 on a 5 year old CPU
*) of course i didn't want an i3 in there like suggested here, it's embedded graphics are to cry about. A base i5 with the 330 would have been preferable
*) lack of a dedicated GPU. the 320 still uses shared DDR3 RAM
*) as a nice to have feature i wouldn't have minded a 1366x768 res with matte option.

so you're right, it is far from a slow computer. just not perfect. and i am glad you at least bit the bullet and got one where i am still contemplating what to do next (i.e. wait or get something else).

 

[macgeek18]

He fell for the megahertz myth.

What is the megahertz myth?

 

[jjahshik32]

What is the megahertz myth?

Basically when Apple was using the G4 and G5 processors, Steve Jobs gave a speech about the megahertz myth where higher clock numbers doesnt necessarily mean "faster" chipsets.

I suppose because the G4's at the time had a slower clock speed than intel and Apple was trying to prove that the G4's are just as fast or faster even with the lower clock numbers in performance.

I find it funny that the megahertz myth is a false myth itself now lol.

 

[kasakka]

*) it runs everything okay now, but i want to use it for 4 years. Then the P8600 will be 7 years old, that is like running a P-III now. Let's try running CS7 on a 5 year old CPU

I don't think so. The leap to multiple core processors made it possible that most things people do don't make the computer even sweat. It should run apps just fine then unless there is a significant change in performance and operating system then, which is quite unlikely.

 

[stefan1975]

I don't think so. The leap to multiple core processors made it possible that most things people do don't make the computer even sweat. It should run apps just fine then unless there is a significant change in performance and operating system then, which is quite unlikely.

that sounds like a "640k should be enough for everyone" statement to me. While i agree that it performs decent enough now, who is to say what will happen in 4 years when the P8600 is 7 years old.

Already we have hexacore cpu's, hyperthreading, turboboost, a HT hexacore would give you 12 virtual cpu's right there. If offce2015 or photoshop CS8 will encorporate that into their design running those on a C2D will be like running Win7 on a celeron M.

 

[JTToft]

A dvd ripping in mactheripper

- I am sorry to post off topic, but I was wondering if this is legal in the country of your residence. Is it and where are you from?
I live in Denmark, and here it is illegal, without the explicit permission of the copyright holder, to copy a DVD, which you purchased legally. Even if the copy is going to be stored on your private computer for private viewing (e.g. on a media center).

And on topic: It is in no way a slow computer, but others are faster. I frequently use the 2.4 GHz Aluminum MacBook (not Pro) and it is amazing. Really runs great. It would be enough for most people's needs, I think. But compared to the i7 it is, naturally, a bit slow.

 

[sadcamper]

I think the 13" is a great little computer, as is the standard MB. I chose something larger only because of the size (which is a personal preference). Previous chipsets always get a bad rap when something new comes out...doesn't mean that they no longer meet many people's demands.

 

[xlii]

All good points, and if you put the history of macs into the mix they're even faster. Before macs used intel processors, they used Power PC(which were considerably slower). Because of this Apple has to base their entire operating system on the hardware they had at the time, but they didn't want to compromise the overall quality.

So, they ended up making an operating system that wasn't very demanding, and would perform very well under those restrictions. Now with Intel processors, Apple is still using pretty much the same operating system (OSX).

Which means, when you compare it to "faster computers" (excluding macs), the result is usually that the Mac would outperform most computers.

I just looked out my window and a unicorn ran across my field of view.