MacBook Pro Refresh Seeing Only Minor Delays Due to Intel Problems?

[MagnusVonMagnum]

That's ridiculous logic. If you buy a MacBook Pro now, whether it's the lowest-end 13" or the highest end 17", it'll serve for a while before not being able to run things. Behind the curve compared to the rest of the industry, sure. Blame that on the obsession with thinness.

Blame it on whatever you feel like, but it doesn't change the fact that Macs are simply overpriced and out-of-date for the hardware you get. The best operating system in the world can't make up for slow hardware when you need to run a given piece of software (i.e. some of us run Windows on our Macs too for certain purposes). My original point and what aznguyen316 was agreeing with is that it shouldn't be this way. There is no technical reason in the world why a Mac should be "behind the curve". They come out often enough with updates to keep up reasonably well. The problem is that they don't keep up. Apple has been beating Microsoft for sheer money lately for goodness sake. Apple is not some 3rd world company anymore. There is simply NO EXCUSE for why Apple computers aren't more competitive in features (if not price). OSX is great, but it's starting to slide relative to Windows7 these days because Windows is moving full steam ahead while Apple is playing with their phone line.

Apple has more than enough resources to keep their computers lines up-to-date AND move OSX full steam forward. I can't reiterate enough how important it is for them to move to OpenGL 4.x if they ever want to regain even a semblance of their former graphics notoriety. You can have the best GPU in the world and if your drivers suck, it won't do you much good. How many games on OSX run at 1/3 to 1/2 the frame rates as the same game in Windows on the same machine??? This is purely do to a lack of effort on Apple's part to keep their video drivers and OpenGL setup up-to-date. Valve has been BEGGING Apple to move forward and when is the last time we heard an update there?

Sooner or later the gaming companies just throw their arms up in the air and say to hell with Apple! It's not because there aren't enough Mac users. Those numbers have been steadily climbing and that's why the gaming companies are interested in the first place. They lose interest because Apple couldn't give a crap about working with them to make OSX a better gaming platform! Apple is responsible for the sorry state of OpenGL and all their video drivers and with the dozens of BILLIONS in flat out cold hard cash they have, there is simply no excuse for it. Apple could single-handedly put thousands of programmers to work if they wanted to. They don't want to. Steve Jobs doesn't care about gaming. He doesn't care about Macs. All he cares about is iOS gadgets. Some of us are getting sick of it.

Apple was putting out really good notebook products as recently as 2008! The Macbook Pro was rated the best notebook for running Vista by Consumer Reports for goodness sake! They were pushing the Mac with those funny commercials, etc. But Steve lost all interest when the iPhone went big. And what Steve loses interest in, Apple loses interest in. They dropped the "Computer" bit and now all they do is push phones. Yay.

Otherwise, it's a fine machine and it'll be fast enough to run many versions of OS X (and your software) to come.

"Fast enough" doesn't cut it when I go to buy new computer hardware. I consider the operating system, but at some point the hardware is vastly more important, especially if I still have a Mac I can use for shopping/banking, whatever where malware is a concern. More to the point, I can stop buying hardware from Apple and go pure Hackintosh and then get the hardware I really want for Windows use (like gaming with a SLI setup) and yet still have compatible hardware to run in OSX mode. I won't even consider a Mac Pro because it's priced into the stratosphere for consumer use compared to what I can build for half that with a Hackintosh. Why on Earth would anyone want to spend $3000+ to get a 4-core Mac Pro with a "decent but underwhelming" GPU when they could get a 4-core Hackintosh with a really nice GPU for $1200? (heck I haven't priced them in awhile; you might even be able to get an 8-core for not much more by now for not much more than that).

Some of us are afraid Apple may eventually exit the "normal" computer market altogether for some kind of iOS/OSX hybrid (seems the way Lion is heading) where "good enough" will the the ONLY order of the day. I'm sure it will come in a pretty case, though.

"Feeling like you're behind the curve" is a poor reason to buy a new computer.

It is? WTF is a good reason in your world? An oh-so-pretty case???

 

[Hellhammer]

There is simply NO EXCUSE for why Apple computers aren't more competitive in features (if not price).

Designing and developing new stuff costs money. Apple is a special company, they can sell you outdated hardware for the full price and people will still be happy. There is no reason to lower prices as current price points sell well and give Apple a nice fatty profits. In the end, business is all about profit.

OSX is great, but it's starting to slide relative to Windows7 these days because Windows is moving full steam ahead while Apple is playing with their phone line.

Apple has been pushing out a new OS every two years. Hmm.. How long did Vista take? It was released 6 years after XP. Even then, it was a horrible OS and now MS came up with Windows 7 which is what Vista should have been.

Apple was putting out really good notebook products as recently as 2008! The Macbook Pro was rated the best notebook for running Vista by Consumer Reports for goodness sake! They were pushing the Mac with those funny commercials, etc. But Steve lost all interest when the iPhone went big. And what Steve loses interest in, Apple loses interest in. They dropped the "Computer" bit and now all they do is push phones. Yay.

I would say the new MBA is amazing piece of hardware. Sure, it does not have the latest CPU but that is irrelevant. At least I love mine.

 

[Darklandman]

Macbook Unibody + MBP 13"

I believe that Apple should make two versions of Unibody 13" macbooks. The macbook unibody, with ODD, intergrated graphics and SB. While having the 13" MBP with no ODD i3 & i5 SB discreet graphics and improved battery, or equal batterylife with more power consuming parts. The unibody would be placed halfway in price between macbook white and mbp. And the pro 13" at a slightly higher price point than it already is. The 15 & 17 could just have higher specs as there is enough room for discreet graphics anyway. This would benifit people who love the form factor of the 13" but have conflicting opinions on the intergrated ODD vs preformance issue.

 

[Fraaaa]

Wasted space for you maybe. Not for enough people for Apple to nix it in what is arguably their most popular Mac.



Like downloading Adobe After Effects, Office 2011, or StarCraft II (let alone Apple's own high-end software like Final Cut Pro) is really more or even just as convenient as doing so by way of install disc. Oh wait, it's not.

You haven't read through the lines..

It's wasted space when you are putting some $30 hardware occupy 20% of your computer and is not use so often.

If they take off the ODD you can buy an external one for less then $50.

I downloaded Office 2011 with no problem, and $50 dvd drive is not that hard to afford. IF you argue that Apple sells software like Logic and Final cut - beside that I don't think is going to be for digital download considered that they have many manuals that come bundled with - and you are spending $500 to $1000 of software I am sure that $50 dvd drive WON'T make the difference.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Blame it on whatever you feel like, but it doesn't change the fact that Macs are simply overpriced and out-of-date for the hardware you get. The best operating system in the world can't make up for slow hardware when you need to run a given piece of software (i.e. some of us run Windows on our Macs too for certain purposes). My original point and what aznguyen316 was agreeing with is that it shouldn't be this way. There is no technical reason in the world why a Mac should be "behind the curve". They come out often enough with updates to keep up reasonably well. The problem is that they don't keep up. Apple has been beating Microsoft for sheer money lately for goodness sake. Apple is not some 3rd world company anymore. There is simply NO EXCUSE for why Apple computers aren't more competitive in features (if not price). OSX is great, but it's starting to slide relative to Windows7 these days because Windows is moving full steam ahead while Apple is playing with their phone line.

Apple has more than enough resources to keep their computers lines up-to-date AND move OSX full steam forward. I can't reiterate enough how important it is for them to move to OpenGL 4.x if they ever want to regain even a semblance of their former graphics notoriety. You can have the best GPU in the world and if your drivers suck, it won't do you much good. How many games on OSX run at 1/3 to 1/2 the frame rates as the same game in Windows on the same machine??? This is purely do to a lack of effort on Apple's part to keep their video drivers and OpenGL setup up-to-date. Valve has been BEGGING Apple to move forward and when is the last time we heard an update there?

Sooner or later the gaming companies just throw their arms up in the air and say to hell with Apple! It's not because there aren't enough Mac users. Those numbers have been steadily climbing and that's why the gaming companies are interested in the first place. They lose interest because Apple couldn't give a crap about working with them to make OSX a better gaming platform! Apple is responsible for the sorry state of OpenGL and all their video drivers and with the dozens of BILLIONS in flat out cold hard cash they have, there is simply no excuse for it. Apple could single-handedly put thousands of programmers to work if they wanted to. They don't want to. Steve Jobs doesn't care about gaming. He doesn't care about Macs. All he cares about is iOS gadgets. Some of us are getting sick of it.

Apple was putting out really good notebook products as recently as 2008! The Macbook Pro was rated the best notebook for running Vista by Consumer Reports for goodness sake! They were pushing the Mac with those funny commercials, etc. But Steve lost all interest when the iPhone went big. And what Steve loses interest in, Apple loses interest in. They dropped the "Computer" bit and now all they do is push phones. Yay.



"Fast enough" doesn't cut it when I go to buy new computer hardware. I consider the operating system, but at some point the hardware is vastly more important, especially if I still have a Mac I can use for shopping/banking, whatever where malware is a concern. More to the point, I can stop buying hardware from Apple and go pure Hackintosh and then get the hardware I really want for Windows use (like gaming with a SLI setup) and yet still have compatible hardware to run in OSX mode. I won't even consider a Mac Pro because it's priced into the stratosphere for consumer use compared to what I can build for half that with a Hackintosh. Why on Earth would anyone want to spend $3000+ to get a 4-core Mac Pro with a "decent but underwhelming" GPU when they could get a 4-core Hackintosh with a really nice GPU for $1200? (heck I haven't priced them in awhile; you might even be able to get an 8-core for not much more by now for not much more than that).

Some of us are afraid Apple may eventually exit the "normal" computer market altogether for some kind of iOS/OSX hybrid (seems the way Lion is heading) where "good enough" will the the ONLY order of the day. I'm sure it will come in a pretty case, though.



It is? WTF is a good reason in your world? An oh-so-pretty case???

I'm not saying I disagree with any of what you just said. Macs are definitely overpriced in terms of the hardware, but unless you roll Hackintosh, where else are you buying a computer to stably run their OS? They have a monopoly on machines that run their OS. It's a bummer, it really is; I'm sure that I could buy an Asus running Mac OS X and have it last me just as long, but be twice as fast for the cost and it'd be all sorts of awesome. Alas, it's not, and there isn't a whole lot one can do about that. That said, if you're buying a Mac and worrying that you're going to be behind the curve in terms of the hardware as compared to the rest of the personal computer market, you're missing the point. If you're buying a Mac to run Windows, unless you're primarily using the Mac, you're missing the point. Despite the fact that Apple's insane obsession with thinness has resulted in Mac minis, iMacs, MacBook Pros, MacBooks, and MacBook Airs that are all behind the curve in terms of their underlying muscle; crippled by their anorexia if you will, if you buy a Mac and don't game on it, you might not feel the need to upgrade for 6 years. Even if you do game on it, my last Mac lasted me five years before I was getting upgrade fever.

I believe that Apple should make two versions of Unibody 13" macbooks. The macbook unibody, with ODD, intergrated graphics and SB. While having the 13" MBP with no ODD i3 & i5 SB discreet graphics and improved battery, or equal batterylife with more power consuming parts. The unibody would be placed halfway in price between macbook white and mbp. And the pro 13" at a slightly higher price point than it already is. The 15 & 17 could just have higher specs as there is enough room for discreet graphics anyway. This would benifit people who love the form factor of the 13" but have conflicting opinions on the intergrated ODD vs preformance issue.

The amount of Mac users who would sacrifice the ODD for extra performance on the 13" Macs are really small compared to the installed customer base for those machines. You all may be a majority on these forums, but you're all a minority at large. As for the larger models, a case could be made, but I think you might be in just as much of a minority there too.

You haven't read through the lines..

It's wasted space when you are putting some $30 hardware occupy 20% of your computer and is not use so often.

If they take off the ODD you can buy an external one for less then $50.

I downloaded Office 2011 with no problem, and $50 dvd drive is not that hard to afford. IF you argue that Apple sells software like Logic and Final cut - beside that I don't think is going to be for digital download considered that they have many manuals that come bundled with - and you are spending $500 to $1000 of software I am sure that $50 dvd drive WON'T make the difference.

I'm a "power-user" and I'm completely fine sacrificing a quad-core CPU (on the 15" and 17" models) and a discrete GPU (on the 13") to retain the ODD, and I know for a fact that I'm not alone and that a majority of Mac users (as in, y'know, people not on this forum) agree. I wish that the damn things weren't so thin so such a sacrifice were necessary, but since ol' Stevo is passing on his own increased thinness to his computers, I'm willing to make that trade-off. I also use the optical drive fairly often. I both burn DVDs, install from DVDs, and play from DVDs, and neither the Internet nor the stupid external superdrive would be as convenient at that on a MacBook Pro as an internal optical drive, I'm sorry. The FireWire port isn't used often, but you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands because when I use it, it comes in handy. Point being that if you want a discrete GPU, get a 15", if you want a quad-core CPU in a Mac, go iMac or Mac Pro (until Steve gets his head out of his arse and allows for a slightly thicker laptop), it sucks, it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and the fact that you don't use a component that often and the fact that a ton of people on this forum agree with you, doesn't mean that everyone else owning a Mac does. In that group, often use or not, you're all in the minority.

 

[rjbruce]

Another Tuesday come and gone...

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'm not saying I disagree with any of what you just said. Macs are definitely overpriced in terms of the hardware, but unless you roll Hackintosh, where else are you buying a computer to stably run their OS?

And I've made that argument before in other threads. I really think it's a shame that the courts think it's OK to let Apple "monopolize" (in an abstract, non-legal term sense) the hardware market for OSX (more of ant-trust artificial tying thing of OS to hardware), but that's just the way it is for now, at least. And yes, I do have to consider a Hackintosh because I care about hardware AND software. And I have to consider Windows7 as well because I do like to run the occasional modern game and OSX just doesn't cut it for gaming and that's Apple's own fault and no one else's really. Gaming comapnies have tried to get Apple to cooperate with them to make OSX better for gaming Apple largely blows them off time and time again. They introduce Electronic Arts at a Mac show only to change nothing and market nothing and do nothing. Drivers are still slow. OpenGL is still ancient and Steve just doesn't give a darn.

That said, if you're buying a Mac and worrying that you're going to be behind the curve in terms of the hardware as compared to the rest of the personal computer market, you're missing the point.

I don't think I am. And I'm not worried about the curve so much as I'm worried I won't be able to run the software I want to run...namely newer games. I don't want to have to keep buying and maintaining multiple computers so a Hackintosh is the best option to get the features for Windows I need for things like gaming and dumping Blu-Ray to AppleTV format (because Apple won't support BD either) while still being able to run OSX for everything else (i.e. security and GUI). I just don't feel we as a community should have to choose between performance and the operating system we love.

If you're buying a Mac to run Windows, unless you're primarily using the Mac, you're missing the point.

I'd like to run the Mac OS 100% of the time, but due to a lack of support from everything from Blu-Ray to SLI I cannot.

if you buy a Mac and don't game on it, you might not feel the need to upgrade for 6 years.

I've got an upgraded 2001 PowerMac here that I'm typing on right now. But it cannot game or video edit or work as my Logic Pro studio so I did have to buy a newer computer (2008 MBP), but even that is slow compared to an 8-core desktop with two high-end GPUs (of which only one will run in OSX). I do a lot of video compression for my whole house Apple TV system and frankly, both my MBP and 2-core Windows PC are just too slow for HD compression. The odd thing is if the Mac at least supported Blu-Ray, I could at least manage that part without using Windows but Steve couldn't even do that much right.

Frankly, if Steve doesn't care about certain market segments like gaming or mid-range expandable power computers, he could always license another company for just that market segment to offer a "state-of-the-art" gaming rig or whatever for OSX. There's a big difference between allowing cloning all over the place and licensing one or two companies for specific type models that Apple has no interest in producing. Similarly, if Apple doesn't want to maintain its video drivers, it could easily make a deal with Nvidia and ATI to do it for them, even if they had to pay them to do it. They maintain their Windows drivers themselves and they do a good job of it. Half the reason OSX performs so poorly with gaming compared to Windows on the same machine is the outdated drivers and outdated OpenGL support (4.x supports conversion of DirectX 9 & 10 functions to keep things fast; Apple doesn't support it PERIOD).

Designing and developing new stuff costs money.

And Apple is rolling in it so they can afford to take the steps necessary to keep up with the professional end. Quite frankly, though, Apple is using what is practically off-the-shelf hardware at this point and it wouldn't cost them much to update the Mac Pro more often (or even offer a lower consumer based version). And there is no excuse for not keeping their video drivers or the OpenGL system up-to-date. I see too many Apple apologists for why Apple isn't what they used to be when they were making less money. I say it has almost nothing to do with development costs and everything to do with Steve Jobs need to control everything while he simply doesn't have the time to do it all with iOS taking up most of his time in recent years.

Apple is a special company, they can sell you outdated hardware for the full price and people will still be happy.

You mean fanboys will be happy. Apple's market share is still tiny. It'll stay tiny because they don't want to sell to people that actually want a powerful computer, just ones that don't know how to work computers and are just happy to check their e-mail.

There is no reason to lower prices as current price points sell well and give Apple a nice fatty profits. In the end, business is all about profit.

You don't think they could make more profit selling to a larger market base than people that aren't computer savvy? I beg to differ. When Microsoft tanked with Vista, they could have captured an even larger market segment, which is always a good hedge in case you have an unpopular product in the future. I liked the Macbook Pro in 2008. I bought one. I don't like the current lineup at all. My next machine will be another desktop. I will not even consider a Mac Pro (let alone an iMac) at this point. I will be building a Hackintosh. It's the only reasonable price option to get power for a reasonable price. I'm not the only one either and it's not because I enjoy building computers, but because I want what I want and 3rd rate hardware at 3x the price of 1st rate PC hardware isn't my idea of value.

Apple has been pushing out a new OS every two years. Hmm.. How long did Vista take?

You're comparing Apples to Oranges across the board. First of all, how long did Apple take between Tiger and Leopard? Microsoft also does major updates within a given name framework (i.e. SP2, SP3, etc. whereas Apple changes the name and major revision number even when the only real addition is the App Store.... tsk tsk. How many real improvements were in Snow Leopard over Leopard? It was supposed to be a more efficient version of Leopard and yet it runs SLOWER than Leopard on my late 2008 MBP). How stable was OSX in the beginning when they moved over from OS9? Frequent updates made sense during an unstable period. How often did Microsoft update Windows from Win95 to XP? It was every 2-3 years as well. How long did it take Apple to get from Classic OS to OSX? How many years did they promise Copland and deliver squat?

The main thing is that we haven't seen huge improvements to OSX since Tiger, IMO (other than the move to Intel). Leopard was the first major version of the OS that was slower than the previous version and Snow Leopard proved to be slower as well. I see now reason to think Lion will be faster. It's biggest feature is the App store...oh boy. OpenGL gets ignored. Drivers get outdated. You'd think Apple couldn't afford to keep them up but that would be absurdity itself given their profits. This sort of thing will eventually bite them in the butt...that is if they don't dump the Mac altogether at some point for some weird iOS hybrid (given the success of the iPad, Jobs probably thinks that proves that people don't care about power anymore, but just want portability).

It was released 6 years after XP. Even then, it was a horrible OS and now MS came up with Windows 7 which is what Vista should have been.

DirectX development didn't stop for 6 years at Microsoft and neither did the hardware support. Apple doesn't even fully support OpenGL 3.x, let alone 4.x. I don't care for Windows 7 much more than Vista, personally. It still has some of the irritating behaviors of Vista and I vastly prefer the Mac GUI, but the fact is I can run games faster and better in Windows even with the same hardware. A company making Apple's profits should be doing a better job there. Making money as an excuse to let everything start sliding is a long-term recipe for disaster, IMO. Apple was cocky in the '80s too and thought that Windows would be a disaster in the '90s. They thought wrong.

I would say the new MBA is amazing piece of hardware. Sure, it does not have the latest CPU but that is irrelevant. At least I love mine.

It's irrelevant to those that don't need a real computer and those that think Mine Sweeper is the be-all of gaming. I largely don't care about notebooks right now. I have one. I need a new desktop soon and the iMac is a POS compared to a $600 PC, let alone a $1200-1500 one. The Mac Pro for consumer uses (where memory protection means jack squat) is 2-3x the price of what you could get for similar performance in the PC realm, not even counting the driver issues that will drag the Mac down 30-100% in speed relative to the same hardware running Windows 7 playing the same game.

Some say people should buy an Xbox or PS3 or use Windows to game, but that's a sad excuse for a computer company to say, "Look our computers don't do gaming. Go buy something from our competitor." I mean WTF kind of marketing is that? Apple has had over a decade to make OSX more friendly to gaming developers and they cannot even update the part of the OS that is FREE to them (i.e. OpenGL). It's really sad and a shame. OSX should be the undisputed leader in ALL areas, not just ones Steve gives a hoot about.

 

[laurim]

I know this is off topic but kind of related as far as what people want out of a MacBook Pro but I'm curious. Why do people want to game on a laptop when playing games on a dedicated gaming console seems like it would be a much better experience and much cheaper overall? I'm obviously not a big gamer but I do own an XBox 360 and Kinect and can't imagine sitting hunched over a computer killing zombies for any reasonable length of time. What makes computer gaming more desirable than console gaming?

 

[iEdd]

I'm know this sounds like I'm trolling, but the reasons my friends PC game is because the console is free (they have a PC anyway), and all the games are free (torrents or 7 day EB 'rentals'). I'm sure there are 'legit' PC gamers, but I've yet to meet one.

I prefer a controller, as it was designed to game, not to type. Between my PS3 and Wii, I have all the best exclusives from LBP to MP3. (My DS and PSP get occasional use, while my Xbox 360 is gathering dust somewhere...)

I think Magnus has some good ideas though. It would be great if Apple opened up some new pathways for NVidia and ATi to make Mac cards and develop software and drivers, so the experience is improved, even if Apple want to stay out of it.

 

[laurim]

I'm a "power-user" and I'm completely fine sacrificing a quad-core CPU (on the 15" and 17" models) and a discrete GPU (on the 13") to retain the ODD, and I know for a fact that I'm not alone and that a majority of Mac users (as in, y'know, people not on this forum) agree.

A "fact" without data to back it up is just opinion. And your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. One of my old bosses once told me when someone tells you something is fact and you don't agree, ask them "Where's your data?".

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I know this is off topic but kind of related as far as what people want out of a MacBook Pro but I'm curious. Why do people want to game on a laptop when playing games on a dedicated gaming console seems like it would be a much better experience and much cheaper overall?

First of all, I want to be able to game on a "Mac" not necessarily a Macbook Pro. In other words, my next computer I build will be a desktop, not a notebook. I already have a MBP and I don't use it for gaming. I use it as a portable recording studio (with Logic Studio) and for video editing and a few other things when docked. I game on my PC desktop tower. But I'm going to replace that tower soon (and turn the old tower into a core for a MAME arcade cabinet) and I'd rather run OSX. But I'll have to boot it into Windows to play most games and not out of choice.

Consoles are "cheaper" and they're convenient for sitting on a couch and playing certain types of games, but they get out-of-date fast, can't do higher-resolution things a newer PC can do in the mean time and aren't as suitable for certain types of games. Admittedly, these days they are more suitable than they used to be with all the connectivity options and add-on controllers, but I still prefer playing some games with a mouse and keyboard. More to the point, if I need a newer computer anyway, why not game on it since I already have it?

I'm a "power-user" and I'm completely fine sacrificing a quad-core CPU (on the 15" and 17" models) and a discrete GPU (on the 13") to retain the ODD, and I know for a fact that I'm not alone and that a majority of Mac users (as in, y'know, people not on this forum) agree.

Interesting. Where do you get your statistics from that you know for a "fact" that a majority agree??? Oh. That's right. You just made that up.