I'd like to think that I'm a very objective person.
But the fact of the matter is, Apple sticking with the Core 2 Duo is indefensible. It's your money, please waste it as how you like, but not upgrading the processor for the 13" is a slap in the face. It'll probably sell like hotcakes and i don't think anybody cares about the extra power, but it's still a slap in the face. an upgraded graphics card, more RAM? That's just part of technology, they're merely "moving with it" instead of offering you something more. I think Apple fanboys are truly blind and I have never felt so bad for a group of fanboys in my life.
Oh also, It's sad that there's no resolution bump, but I realize that is probably very very farfetchd so that's fine. this is why anybody who gives a **** about computers don't buy mac. not because of how expensive it is. i'd spend the money if i felt like apple cared enough to not slap me around whenever there's a refresh.
that said, 15" seems to be the good buy. My only guess is that the i3 is backordered so maybe if we wait a couple of months, it'd be upgraded.
You may think you're an objective person but you're fooling yourself.
The C2D is a reasonable design tradeoff (see below). Do you think that Apple simply had some shipping clerk choose what CPU they installed? No one ever considered any alternatives or tested anything? It was chosen solely because some secretary thought 'Core 2 Duo' sounded sexy?
Apple has been building personal computers for a long time (probably longer than anyone else in the business now that IBM isn't making PCs anymore). They understand their customers far better than you do - and are smart enough to realize that it's not all about specs any more. ANY modern computer is more than fast enough for 90% of users. It's about the total balance between features, performance, ease of use, price, battery life, weight, etc. And they chose this particular combination.
The fact that it's not what you wanted isn't a slap in the face to anyone. It is just an indication that your needs to not mesh exactly with what Apple offers. Either you compromise on some features or you find a supplier who offers what you want. Simple.
is there a reason apple favoured keeping the core 2 duo on the 13 inch, as oppose to say using a lower clock speed i5 or possibly the i3?
Could be any one of several reasons. Price, perhaps (I suspect Apple would have been able to negotiate very low pricing on C2D). Or the graphics explanation you've been given. Or some other tradeoff.
Does it matter? The new 13" MBP is 30-80% faster than the old one on the apps shown on Apple's web site. For 99% of consumers, that matters more than some silly spec game.
I'd take core i5+ intel HD graphics over C2d+ nvidia integrated graphics any day. The new intel HD graphics is not really that bad, it has all the features for HD decoding and playback.
You're free to choose the i5. Just buy a 15".
Apple's market research has apparently shown that very few people buying a 13" computer care enough about minor performance differences to justify the cost.
why an i5 on top of the line MBPro and not an i&?
i really do not know.
and a lower processor speed?
The i7 is a bto option, so there's nothing stopping you from getting an i7 on 17" MBP.
The lack of the i3 is a slap in the face. It is the reason I was holding back for so long. Though being in a house that isn't technical, I've always had to put up with pathetic processors and computers that crash on me when I want to take it to its maximum.
However, considering the extra RAM and a Core Duo etc will be a giant leap compared to the Celeron processors I have to put up with. 1.6 GHz...
Here's a hint: Look at the entire package. Does it do what you need better than the alternatives? If so, then you buy it and stop worrying about buzzwords. The 13" is 30-80% faster than its predecessor and has significantly better battery life. It's probably AT LEAST as fast as an i3 with integrated graphics (which would probably be about the same price), so why do you care which cpu is in it?
In other news: "ASUS has today announced a new notebook that is available on Newegg and other online sellers for under $900. The machine is called the ASUS U30Jc and sports a 13.3-inch screen. The machine has NVIDIA Optimus tech inside and uses an Intel Core i3-350M processor.
Graphics include an NVIDIA discrete GPU matched with Intel integrated GPU that change depending on the user workload and needs of the machine at the time. The NVIDIA discrete GPU is the GeForce GT310M."
That's nice. Does it have a 10 hour battery life? Does it run Mac OS X (legally)? Does it match the MBP's form factor and weight? Does Asus match Apple's proven reliability and customer service?
Since the answer to all those questions is 'no', I'll pass.
So I am still confused on this whole graphics thing on the 13". Is the reason that they can't do a dedicated graphics solution due to Apple's design not having enough room for it? It seems as though it is not a limitation of the i3, but I am clearly not sure.
It's actually due to Intel's design decision and failure to license nvidia. That created some constraints which affected Apple's choices.
i'm not normally one to chime in on such debates but here it is:
The new top-end 17" MacBook Pro cost £2,458.99 with the i7 dual-core CPU, 8 GB RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive. A reasonable spec for a mobile photographer / video / audio editor like myself.
The Dell Precision 6500M costs £2,492.00 for a true quad-core i7 with Win 7 64 bit with 8 GB RAM and two 160 hard drives in a RAID 0 or RAID 1 configuration as well as a 1GB nVIDIA FX3800M graphics card. Okay it's uglier, the battery pack is large, the battery life is woeful and it weighs a kilo more - but it's intended to be a luggable desktop replacement with proper power for those that need it - us photo and video guys. .
That's nice. Does it have a 10 hour battery life? Does it run Mac OS X (legally)? Does it match the MBP's form factor and weight? Does Asus match Apple's proven reliability and customer service?
Since the answer to all those questions is 'no', I'll pass. If you want to place price above everything else, go right ahead, though.
Adobe's Premiere runs 3 times faster for renders on my Mac Pro in Win 7 via Boot Camp than Premiere for OS X. That may change with CS5, but surely Apple is in danger of losing the market that made them way back when - the creative professionals?
I understand that the new 17" MacBook Pro strikes a balance between power consumption and performance - but surely there should be a fully-fledged desktop replacement build-to-order option?
Apparently, the number of people who want to carry a 10 pound 'laptop' is too small to be worthwhile. Furthermore, the high end MBP will do just about everything that that Dell does - and does most things much better.
As for Premiere - you can blame Adobe for that. Adobe software has been turning into overpriced junk for some time. I hope cs5 is better.
better processor, lesser graphics (possibly worse than the previous generation)
lesser processor, better graphics
better processor, even better graphics, increased cost
Those were Apples options. They took the second one. They choose the third option for the base 15" mbp that also came with only integrated graphics before this update. People are complaining about that choice too.
Finally - someone who understands that there are design tradeoffs.
I'm getting really tired of people who pick one spec and claim that their $799 system is a better value because it has the same processor as Apple's $1599 system - ignoring all the other features, build quality, service, support, weight, battery life, and the other 1000 factors that need to be considered.
It's not all about silly spec games, folks.
I called Apple Canada this morning (for what it's worth) and told them not upgrading the 13" to i5 was almost unbelievable. I would have ordered one today, but I guess I'll wait until the next revision... (5 macs and 2 iphone family)
What kind of God complex would make you want to call a supplier and tell them that you don't like their products and will wait till a future version? Do you really think they care what one outspoken individual has to say?
Did you call BMW and tell them you're not buying a new 7-series, too?
This update brought me out of lurking.
I wanted something that would at least match this:
$1,699.99
Mission FAILED.
But, I can't stand Windows, so I won't buy the Envy either. I'll buy nothing and wait until Apple delivers something that is more competitive.
Well, if you're not interested in buying the Envy, it's not really keeping you from buying a MBP, is it?
It's NOT all about silly spec and price games, folks. It's about the total package. If you don't think this version offers enough incentive to upgrade, there's nothing wrong with that. But if no other system offers you reason to upgrade, either, then you're not a real customer and your opinion doesn't matter.
Step 1: Buy Cheaper Machine w/ i7
Step 2: OS X x86 Install
Step 3: Profit
Sure - if you don't mind stealing intellectual property. Fortunately, most of the world is more honest than you.
Not to mention, of course, that your hacked solution may well have problems with bad drivers and/or upgrades.
