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

[xlii]

For the most part (with a few exceptions) the software we use today hasn't kept up with the improvements in hardware. The exceptions are graphic intensive games and video encoding. Even 5 and 6 year old laptops can easily do 95% of what we use a laptop for.

 

[sauer228]

Couldn't agree more. My wife and I purchased our first mac about 2 weeks ago and I am dumbfounded how smooth and fast it has been. There has been a slight learning curve for both of us after using a PC for so long, but once we got the basic understanding down it has been a joy to use.

 

[trondah]

Haha that was a nice fairytale indeed

 

[TheNewDude]

What was insulting is when i installed RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 on my 13" MBP and it said that the Graphics settings should be set to LOW according to the computing power of this computer.... TSK TSK TSK

 

[SurferMan]

I have a 2.53/4gb ram MBP 13, and though I'm having issues still after being so used to windows (mainly getting certain programs running on a mac) its far from slow, fast and efficient. Personally I think its the perfect size, easy for travel, netbooks are took small for what I do with some biz (doable but would be a pain in the ass on a small screen), yet its still comfy in the lap and doesn't feel like a heavy brick lol.

 

[Penn Jennings]

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).

Not to be a downer but you do understand that ALL hardware has a life span. The are many advances in technology that we know will occur. In the next 4 years many things "could" happen as well:

• There could be a memory break through. 16 GB of high speed memory for All!
• Battery break through, 18 hours on a charge, recharge in 20 minutes.
• USB 3.0 (5 Gbs) will replace USB 2.0 (480 Mbs).
• Light Peak could replace USB and FireWire.
• Short range VERY fast (5 Gbs) Wi-FI could be deployed.
• Etc, etc.

And that does even take into account that after 4 year, even Apple products can start having issues. If your Mac works for you in the distant future (And 4 years is forever in technology terms), that's great, but there is no way to make a product today that will compare to products in 4 years... the technology doesn't even exist now.

 

[mark28]

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.

People call it slow because compared to new laptops it is slow.

 

[iverson76]

It's slow compared to the 15" and 17" MBPs and it's slower compared to the various Windows 7 i5-i7 laptops at Best Buy as well....but it's all about what you need. I couldn't justify paying $1800 for a powerful MBP that I'll never come close to taking advantage of. And I also didn't want to pay $850 for an i5 HP laptop that might last a year.

If you play games, photoshop, and edit video all day then why are you buying a 13" anyway? If you're a casual user who does internet, email, and MSOffice then the 13MPB should be fine for years.

The 13" will be fast enough for a lot of everyday users for quite a while. Not only that but you can always throw 8gb of RAM in there.

 

[robotmonkey]

It's slow compared to the 15" and 17" MBPs and it's slower compared to the various Windows 7 i5-i7 laptops at Best Buy as well....but it's all about what you need. I couldn't justify paying $1800 for a powerful MBP that I'll never come close to taking advantage of. And I also didn't want to pay $850 for an i5 HP laptop that might last a year.

If you play games, photoshop, and edit video all day then why are you buying a 13" anyway? If you're a casual user who does internet, email, and MSOffice then the 13MPB should be fine for years.

The 13" will be fast enough for a lot of everyday users for quite a while. Not only that but you can always throw 8gb of RAM in there.

it won't be slower than a windows box for long....

 

[Furifo]

I'm getting a base 13" in September and from what I've heard from others and this thread, I can't wait. This 5 year old laptop I'm using now is a turtle compared to probably anything you guys have and it still pulls most of todays basic everyday applications through! Multi-tasking does get slow, I'll admit but it's a slowness that I'm used to

1.73ghz pentium M
1GB RAM
ATI mobility radeon x700 (which even 5 years ago still wasn't a very good card)
100gb HDD (Have a 500gb external one for my media + stuff).

MBP should be fun after 5 years of that, right?

It's slow compared to the 15" and 17" MBPs and it's slower compared to the various Windows 7 i5-i7 laptops at Best Buy as well....but it's all about what you need. I couldn't justify paying $1800 for a powerful MBP that I'll never come close to taking advantage of. And I also didn't want to pay $850 for an i5 HP laptop that might last a year.

If you play games, photoshop, and edit video all day then why are you buying a 13" anyway? If you're a casual user who does internet, email, and MSOffice then the 13MPB should be fine for years.

The 13" will be fast enough for a lot of everyday users for quite a while. Not only that but you can always throw 8gb of RAM in there.

Even so, I don't think the base MBP does a BAD job of gaming. There's a few videos up on YouTube of it pulling Oblivion on high. There's also some of it handling Just Cause 2 on a mix of med/high settings and also Mass Effect 2. Hell, it even pulls Crysis on medium according to a few videos.

I will admit though, the max resolution it games at is only 1280 x 800 which isn't too graphically demanding but IMO for what it's worth, it does a good job of gaming for the casual gamers out there.

 

[mrsavage1]

I have to disagree with op. it is slow. I have a 13 inch 2010 baseline macbook pro and its slow. But the reason is not that it can't do things its because of expectations. Expectations evolve as the world changes. This would have been a fast laptop back in 2009 but now nearly all similarly windows speced laptops have the i3 or the i5 in them. Don't get me wrong it does the stuff i wanted but if it was equipped with an i5 or i3 it would have finished a lot of my compilation work faster.

For instance windows programmers who bought their PC's last and this year have the new processors, they are compiling code faster or if they are editing videos or ripping dvds, encoding....(list goes on) they will be accomplishing their work faster(about 25% faster if some benches are correct). Therefore its slow now compared to what is the current standard in the computing world.

However, if u just do normal stuff like writing etc then you'll be just fine.

Its still a good laptop. I really like it. But it is slow. Even Jobs admitted it when he said he had to make a choice with cpu and gpu(showing that the assumption was that he didn't think it was a fast cpu).

 

[TMRaven]

Jobs was saying the new i3s were slow, and weren't enough of an upgrade to justify using intel's integrated graphics. You defeated your whole post with the last line I'm afraid.

 

[robotmonkey]

1.73ghz pentium M
1GB RAM
ATI mobility radeon x700 (which even 5 years ago still wasn't a very good card)
100gb HDD (Have a 500gb external one for my media + stuff).

MBP should be fun after 5 years of that, right?

WWHHHOOOAAA

 

[Horus]

-Because it doesn't have an Arrandale CPU. According to tech pros, it has a "2007" CPU, unable to do anything.
-Even more so, you can't play super duper games on it, and because of that, you can't show it off to your geeky friends and say "OMG IZ RUNNING AT 40 FPS".
-Because you can buy "better" rigs with better specs at a lower price but, instead of buying them, you come here and whine. (A perfectly understandable reason btw).

 

[robotmonkey]

I have to disagree with op. it is slow. I have a 13 inch 2010 baseline macbook pro and its slow. But the reason is not that it can't do things its because of expectations. Expectations evolve as the world changes. This would have been a fast laptop back in 2009 but now nearly all similarly windows speced laptops have the i3 or the i5 in them. Don't get me wrong it does the stuff i wanted but if it was equipped with an i5 or i3 it would have finished a lot of my compilation work faster.

For instance windows programmers who bought their PC's last and this year have the new processors, they are compiling code faster or if they are editing videos or ripping dvds, encoding....(list goes on) they will be accomplishing their work faster(about 25% faster if some benches are correct). Therefore its slow now compared to what is the current standard in the computing world.

However, if u just do normal stuff like writing etc then you'll be just fine.

Its still a good laptop. I really like it. But it is slow. Even Jobs admitted it when he said he had to make a choice with cpu and gpu(showing that the assumption was that he didn't think it was a fast cpu).

It's not really much slower. An ssd will make it faster than an i5. And all windows computers will eventually get slower... it's what happens when you have an os that literally cannibalizes itself and slowly kills the hardware. Whereas my 13 inch will be faster than it is today (ssd, more ram) 4 years from now and will still be better than even more expensive pc's

 

[mrsavage1]

Jobs was saying the new i3s were slow, and weren't enough of an upgrade to justify using intel's integrated graphics. You defeated your whole post with the last line I'm afraid.

No sir,

" One interested party even went so far as to send an email to Apple CEO Steve Jobs about the decision, and shared Jobs' response with us," Slivka reports. "According to Jobs, Apple chose to focus on the graphics performance and combine it with outstanding battery life instead of opting for the alternative of merely a small increase in CPU speed."
Its faster.

 

[mrsavage1]

It's not really much slower. An ssd will make it faster than an i5. And all windows computers will eventually get slower... it's what happens when you have an os that literally cannibalizes itself and slowly kills the hardware. Whereas my 13 inch will be faster than it is today (ssd, more ram) 4 years from now and will still be better than even more expensive pc's

"It's not really much slower. An ssd will make it faster than an i5. " unless u add a ssd into an i5 or i3 PC. Windows PCs can add more ram as well.

"it's what happens when you have an os that literally cannibalizes itself and slowly kills the hardware." win 7 is not that bad in my opinion. vista and xp did do that but 7 has fixed a lot of problems. I like OSX thats why i choose it as a trade off instead of a faster proc. But in terms of raw compling power, as a programmer i would be lying to myself to say those i3s didn't have raw computing power. I could also install linux into that laptop and it would be very stable as well.

 

[robotmonkey]

"It's not really much slower. An ssd will make it faster than an i5. " unless u add a ssd into an i5 or i3 as well.(which would be

"it's what happens when you have an os that literally cannibalizes itself and slowly kills the hardware." win 7 is not that bad in my opinion. vista and xp did do that but 7 has fixed a lot of problems. I like OSX thats why i choose it as a trade off instead of a faster proc. But in terms of raw compling power, as a programmer i would be lying to myself to say those i3s didn't have raw computing power. I could also install linux into that laptop and it would be very stable as well.

I'm not saying it's as fast, just that it is still fast. And my argument is between mac and windows, Linux is obviously a different story. For the price of a 15 or 17, you can get a 13 with an ssd. I don't get the windows 7 love fest or the vista bashing; vista is bad but not deserving of all of the crap it gets and 7 is good but not deserving of the praise it gets. Windows 7 is still the same operating system essentially, so even though it is much more refined it is still windows and the fundamental problems with windows are still there.

 

[Penn Jennings]

If you play games, photoshop, and edit video all day then why are you buying a 13" anyway? If you're a casual user who does internet, email, and MSOffice then the 13MPB should be fine for years.

I can answer that!

Some days I do edit Video all day or use Photoshop CS5 on a MBP 13. 90% of the time I'm using a gorgeous 24 inch 1920x1200. On those days, it doesn't really matter which MBP is it. The ONLY time the i5 or i7 will help is if I'm rending a lot of video, other wise you are taking about split seconds. On those days the i5 could reduce my time from 4 hours to 3 hours.... but I'm doing that type of work over night anyway. If I really need kick ass performance, I'd be a schmuck for using any MBP.

The 10% of the time that I'm not plugged in, I'd like something portable. I've had bigger in the past, the 13 is sooo much nicer when you are on the move. And lets face it, 13 or 15... It's still not even close to a real monitor.

Throw in the fact that the MBP 15 is 40% more money and it's a no brainer to me.

 

[mrsavage1]

I'm not saying it's as fast, just that it is still fast. And my argument is between mac and windows, Linux is obviously a different story. For the price of a 15 or 17, you can get a 13 with an ssd. I don't get the windows 7 love fest or the vista bashing; vista is bad but not deserving of all of the crap it gets and 7 is good but not deserving of the praise it gets. Windows 7 is still the same operating system essentially, so even though it is much more refined it is still windows and the fundamental problems with windows are still there.

fast is a relative term. i think u mean fast as it runs the application well enough to meet your satisfaction.

However, when your work depends on how fast the application can code and you are competing with other companies whose main buisness is to program code. Then using this macbook is slow. Its like formula one, where the cars are always updated every year. Last year's model runs well but will not be faster than this year's models. If u pit the old car with the new cars you will be at a disadvantage.

For the price of a 15 or 17, you can get a 13 with an ssd. How about other CPU intensive operations that aren't affected by the hd? SSD does not impact my compliation of programs.

Linux is another os possibility for the pc to run. You can't discount that as a choice OS. if i installed linux onto the i3 pc then stability wouldn't be a problem right?

 

[robotmonkey]

I can answer that!

Some days I do edit Video all day or use Photoshop CS5 on a MBP 13. 90% of the time I'm using a gorgeous 24 inch 1920x1200. On those days, it doesn't really matter which MBP is it. The ONLY time the i5 or i7 will help is if I'm rending a lot of video, other wise you are taking about split seconds. On those days the i5 could reduce my time from 4 hours to 3 hours.... but I'm doing that type of work over night anyway. If I really need kick ass performance, I'd be a schmuck for using any MBP.

The 10% of the time that I'm not plugged in, I'd like something portable. I've had bigger in the past, the 13 is sooo much nicer when you are on the move. And lets face it, 13 or 15... It's still not even close to a real monitor.


Throw in the fact that the MBP 15 is 40% more money and it's a no brainer to me.

I really don't see why a 13 inch screen is too small... I do primarily photoshop and illustrator on it and it works perfectly. The performance is certainly not worth the price of 15 inch (then again I shouldn't be talking I have the 2.66 GHz 13). Processors are only a part of computer speed. When I can get a 160 gb ssd for $200, I'll be getting one. And good point with the 13 vs 15... they are both small monitors so it's kinda a weak argument.

 

[TMRaven]

No sir,

" One interested party even went so far as to send an email to Apple CEO Steve Jobs about the decision, and shared Jobs' response with us," Slivka reports. "According to Jobs, Apple chose to focus on the graphics performance and combine it with outstanding battery life instead of opting for the alternative of merely a small increase in CPU speed."
Its faster.

I never once said they were slower than the current core2duos in the 13 inchers, I said it's "slow" (relatively speaking of course, to a lot of other cpus) and "not much of an upgrade," meaning it's still an upgrade but barely an upgrade. Your quote even has Jobs saying "merely a small increase in cpu speed."
There's nothing special about the new arrandale chips, going from a core2duo to an arrandale isn't like going from night to day, and the core2duos are still plenty fast for most everyday computing needs-- even faster at some of them, considering the better gpu can help more with realtime video editing or filters, flash acceleration and so on. In fact, if you look at the benchmarks, the i3 and core2duo are virtually the same for nearly every aspect, except for video editing (which by the way is arrandale's biggest advantage) and the gain is around 25%.

The 13 inch macbook pros are still very competent computers.

 

[mrsavage1]

I never once said they were slower than the current core2duos in the 13 inchers, I said it's "slow" (relatively speaking of course, to a lot of other cpus) and "not much of an upgrade," meaning it's still an upgrade but barely an upgrade. Your quote even has Jobs saying "merely a small increase in cpu speed."
There's nothing special about the new arrandale chips, going from a core2duo to an arrandale isn't like going from night to day, and the core2duos are still plenty fast for most everyday computing needs-- even faster at some of them, considering the better gpu can help more with realtime video editing or filters, flash acceleration and so on. In fact, if you look at the benchmarks, the i3 and core2duo are virtually the same for nearly every aspect, except for video editing (which by the way is arrandale's biggest advantage) and the gain is around 25%.

The 13 inch macbook pros are still very competent computers.

I said it's "slow" (relatively speaking of course, to a lot of other cpus). your comment about slow was quite vague but if that was what u mean then yeah its slow compared to the i5s or i7s but fast compared to core 2 duos

"and the core2duos are still plenty fast for most everyday computing needs-- even faster at some of them, considering the better gpu can help more with realtime video editing or filters, flash acceleration and so on. " the only problem is that the 13 inchers were expected to recieve the gpu and i3 upgrade together.

"if you look at the benchmarks, the i3 and core2duo are virtually the same for nearly every aspect, except for video editing (which by the way is arrandale's biggest advantage) and the gain is around 25%."

Could you link the benchmarks. I'd like to see them. An i3 m 330 vs the p8600

"Your quote even has Jobs saying "merely a small increase in cpu speed."" he never defined what a "small" increase was. So let's see the benches and everyone can get a non-subjective view of whether the increase was small or not.

i agree that the 13 inch macbook pro's are competent but they are slow compared to the current standards.

 

[kasakka]

However, when your work depends on how fast the application can code and you are competing with other companies whose main buisness is to program code. Then using this macbook is slow. Its like formula one, where the cars are always updated every year. Last year's model runs well but will not be faster than this year's models. If u pit the old car with the new cars you will be at a disadvantage.

In that case, why would you use the 13" MBP at all? Or the 15"? Or even the 17"? Surely you'd do something that time critical on the fastest stuff - like a Mac Pro for example.

I work mostly with Adobe's software and my late 2009 13" MBP does everything I need without problems. Something like encoding a video is not that time critical to me - it doesn't matter if it takes a few minutes longer because I can just leave that running in the background and do something else at the same time.

I find that when I'm working, any pauses that interrupt my workflow are more annoying than something I do when I'm done, like final video encoding.

 

[mrsavage1]

In that case, why would you use the 13" MBP at all? Or the 15"? Or even the 17"? Surely you'd do something that time critical on the fastest stuff - like a Mac Pro for example.

I work mostly with Adobe's software and my late 2009 13" MBP does everything I need without problems. Something like encoding a video is not that time critical to me - it doesn't matter if it takes a few minutes longer because I can just leave that running in the background and do something else at the same time.

I find that when I'm working, any pauses that interrupt my workflow are more annoying than something I do when I'm done, like final video encoding.

Some of us don't have the cash to get a 15 inch. "Something like encoding a video is not that time critical to me" compilation is critical to me. I have to recompile the program frequently to check through bugs. I can't just let that run in the background. Again if u don't do work that is cpu intensive, as i said this macbook is competent.