New MacBook = New MacBookPro - Ultimate Insult!!!!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MarkCombs, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. MarkCombs macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    #1
    The contrasts between the new MBP and the previous models just keeps getting worse. This morning, over at MacWorld, I read the benchmarks that compare the new MacBooks with the new MacBookPro:

    http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1

    Want to be annoyed? The new 2.4 GHz MacBook is FASTER than the MacbookPro in the Photoshop test - this was always a strength of MacBookPro owners. In fact, the overall Speedmark score shows only a 1.4% increase in overall benchmark increase from the MBP over the new MacBook.

    This must indicates Apple's new direction to continue to blur the difference between the two lines and continue to dilute the pro platform - VERY sad!!! The new MBP should START with a 2.8 chip, 4 megs of Ram, and a 7200 RPM drive, and a MATTE option!!!!

    If you're a new MacBook owner, you're in heaven, if you're a new MBP owner, and you updated from a recent MBP - you didn't get much value for your money...

    M
     
  2. fireball87 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    #2
    I can't see that faring well in benchmarks.

    --edit--

    And I don't think it should be a very notable surprise that the 1500 and 2000 dollar MB/MBPs should be far apart, seeing as apart from the graphics card they have nearly identical hardware in everything thats important where benchmarks are concerned.
     
  3. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    I'm confused about your title…

    So MacBook + Ultimate Insult = MacBook Pro?
     
  4. findnemo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    #4
    /facepalm you
    /facepalm apple for making..........their.......products.......better........

    So sick of people complaining about the new mb/mbp, I'm going to stop reading these boards all together.

    It's retarded that people complain on things they have a choice over.....no matte.......go PC......no one is forcing you to buy a mac.

    Also a slap in the face? Macbook owners think it's a slap in the face that they don't get firewire while the pro's do, and your elitist self thinks it's a slap in the face that the macbook is 1.4% faster in photoshop.......LMFAO.

    Gtfo.
     
  5. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #5
    I heartily disagree with your sentiment that MBP 2.4 buyers "didn't get much value for their money." I'm very happy with my purchase and did not consider, and still would not have considered a MB 2.4.

    1) I prefer the larger screen

    2) I need Firewire

    3) The MW benchmarks show the MBP crushes the MB in Quake where the GPU is heavily pressed. Indeed, that is, and has always been one of the definitive differences between the MB and MBP -- a REAL video card. I don't play Quake but I do use other s/w like Motion that requires a REAL video card to be efficient and fast.

    4) The $1999 price point works great for me, and at $400 more than the MB I think I did get a decent number of upgrades to make it worth my while. You can dream all day about the 2.8 being the standard chip, but Apple does need to make a profit. It's grossly unreasonable to think Apple could price the two machines just $400 apart from each other and put a 2.4 chip in the MB and a 2.8 in the MBP.
     
  6. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #6
    I have bought software for OS X for a couple thousand bucks (CS3 & Cinema 4D) and can't switch platforms so easily, like many others around here. I just happen to PREFER a matte screen, and after a year with an Alu-iMac I think I can make an informed decision.

    Luckily, there is a third option, that's why I have ordered a leftover previous generation 2,5 ghz mbp for about the same price as a new 2,0 ghz macbook.
    It will last for the foreseeable future.

    I can see Steve entering the stage in 3-4 years saying "well everybody now has these glossy screens, and people hate the reflections, we now present the new matte laptop range!".

    And especially people like you will go oooohh wow, since everything Apple releases is as cool as it gets of course. :rolleyes:
     
  7. Teej guy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #7
    Wrong, the music industry is forcing me to buy a mac. Not to mention, I kinda like OS X, I just hate glossy screens. Is that such a bloody crime?

    At least you're gtfo.

    Although I have to say, complaining that the new MacBooks are powerful is stupid. However, complaining they don't have firewire is a perfectly legitamate issue.
     
  8. MarkCombs thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    #8
    all I'm saying is that the performance difference between the two platforms is very close. Yes, the new MBP is better at Quake, but for pro users, Photoshop performance has always been the key benchmark in my opinion. I wanted to like the new MBP, you won't find a SINGLE complaint by me about other Apple products on this site - I'm a huge Apple fan (and a shareholder) - I just think this new product offering is sub-standard and it's disappointing. This is a serious question, for which I don't know the answer; can anyone ever remember a MAJOR product upgrade (that includes an enclosure change) from Apple when the cpu was not upgraded?

    I just think that in this environment, in this economy, and considering they are still a 10% player, they would want to hit a home run. I was ready to buy a new MBP - now I'm sticking with what I have....I don't mean to infer that someone with a new MBP didn't get a good machine, I'm merely pointing out that from a performance standpoint, this update was incremental....

    M

    I'm not complaining about the new MacBooks being more powerful. If you're a new MacBook owner you got a FANTASTIC machine and I'm happy about that (I own Apple shares - so I put my money where my mouth is and have the right to complain). I'm a graduate student at UCI and the new MacBook is going to FLY off the shelves!!! I can't say the same for the new MBP however....
     
  9. Teej guy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #9
    Actually, yes, I'd have to agree, the bang for the buck in terms of processor power/memory in the MacBook Pro seems to be pretty low right now compared to previous revisions. Calling it the ultimate insult is a little OTT, the MacBook Pro does have a better quality screen (viewing angle, black level I believe) than the MacBook (although I wouldn't buy either since they're glossy), but the price difference is a little difficult to justify, especially since they share the same construction. It'll be interesting to see how much of a speed boost Snow Leopard's offloading to the GPU will deliver.
     
  10. thedarkhorse macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    of course the mbp isn't a pro machine anymore, it comes in a white box now.
     
  11. dwdrums macrumors newbie

    dwdrums

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Pa, USA
  12. drayon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    #12
    haha could be
    mirror display - firewire = ultimate insult
     
  13. drayon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    #13
    i think steve and jon need to stop being money grabbers and go back an build us a propa pro machine.
     
  14. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #14
    Also the Macbook Pro has a screen that isn't crap.

    My £499 Tosh which I bought over a year before my £829 MacBook has a better screen with far better viewing angles, oh and its matte.
     
  15. drayon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    #15
    Apple have had 7 years to build a new machine and this is the POS they come out with.. bah they should build something i wouldn't p!ss on!

    I i recall we mac users were fine with our matte screens until all these switchers turned up at cried about no glossy screens. so now its all this we get stuck with them with no choice. additionally, most people don't consider windows a favorable choice it's more like a poke in the eye with a a hot spike.
     
  16. sjobs@mac.com macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    #16
    Photoshop is not GPU heavy so you should not see a huge difference. If you run Aperture or video rendering software, you will see a difference.

    Personally I think both machines are great. I do however had wished that the pro-line would have more BTO options, such as matte or Hi-Def screens.

    My $0.02.
     
  17. markgamber macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Location:
    Redneck, PA
    #17
    I'm not holding my breath.
     
  18. Queen of Spades macrumors 68030

    Queen of Spades

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Iron Throne
    #18
    I personally was very close to swapping my MBP out for a MacBook because I wanted something smaller/lighter. I went so far as going into the Apple Store intending to return it. However, once inside, I played with both the MBP and the MB and found the MB to be noticeably slower. I tried Final Cut, Photoshop, COD4, and Garage Band, and there was some slowness and delay with opening and using these programs on the MB. COD4 looked pretty choppy and mediocre on the MB. I decided to keep my MBP and couldn't be happier. The screen on the MBP was also noticeably better from a colors and viewing angle standpoint.

    So yeah, I'd say there is a noticeable difference.
     
  19. fireball87 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    #19
    Though you are comparing the 2.0 ghz Macbook to the 2.4 ghz MBP and he's comparing the 2.4 gzh Macbook to the 2.4 ghz MBP.
     
  20. MarkCombs thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    #20
    if you like the glossy screen, the new Macbook is a SMOKER!!!! Apple is going to sell millions of these by Jan 1 2009!!!!! You can pick one up at the UCI computer store for $1499 - but an even better deal is the last generation MBP, you can get a 2.4 for $1399 and a 2.5 for $1599 - those are the deals to be had. I bought a 2.4 for graduate school a month ago and paid $1599 for a 2.4 so if I had waited I would have saved $200 - but the 2.4 w/Matte for $1599 is a good deal. Now that Apple has gone to glossy, I'll upgrade to 4 gigs of ram and put in a 7200 rpm travelstar and wait this mess out...
     
  21. mgclayton macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    #21
    Both have the same 2.4GHz Intel chips, with the same NVIDIA chipset, the same 1066MHz FSB, and the same DDR3 RAM. Why would you expect any difference in non GPU-intensive apps? The few points difference are easily within error margins I expect.
    As soon as you get to the GPU intensive game you see the MBP wins by some margin. Just as expected.
    The lower end MBP gets a bigger better screen a discrete video card, firewire and expresscard, and is $400 more. Seems pretty reasonable.
    We should be more pleased that the MB flies compared to the old model!

    Believe me, I mourn what seems to be the end of FW. All my external hard drives are FW, as is my DV camera. I've found it much better than USB, but this won't be the first time superior tech has lost out. I won't cry for too long.

    I think I still need the benefits of matte explained to me though. All the screens I've had in the past (including some beefy work laptops) have been matte, my MBP is glossy. It's by far the best screen I've had, and is the only one I've ever been able to see outside in direct sunlight.
    I understand the reflections argument, but haven't found it to be an issue personally.
    What I don't understand is the quality argument. If we assume that the light coming off the LEDs is 'pure', then just having glass in front means the display is as 'pure' as possible doesn't it? I mean putting a matte surface in between (designed to divert light, particularly reflections) can only have a negative impact on the 'purity' can't it? And there's no guarantee that it will divert/reflect all frequencies evenly (in fact it's very unlikely). Can someone explain? Or is it just that LCDs are 'better' than LEDs? In which case I guess it's a sacrifice to being greener.
    Incidentally, I've looked (though not exhaustively) for matte LED screens and not found any. Does anyone do them?
     
  22. Queen of Spades macrumors 68030

    Queen of Spades

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Iron Throne
    #22
    That's true, but the GPU is the same in both MacBooks, as is the screen. It wasn't solely the .4Ghz difference.
     
  23. richard13 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Mill Creek, WA
    #23

    I really don't see what the fuss is over. These two models have the same processor, RAM, etc. Why would you think the numbers would be way better on the MBP? In fact, the differences are just a second or two (read: almost none). Where the MBP really shines is in the Quake 4 framerate test. The MBP totally smokes the MB!

    I think a better comparison would be pitting the high end MB to the high end MBP. There I think you'd see some more differentiated numbers.
     
  24. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #24
    Alright I will buy the PC if you buy the PC version of all my plug ins. It would only be around $6000. Oh and I'll need you to code up Logic to run on PC. Then we'll be good.
    I hope you will live up to your word and not get involved in thread that has you say make no difference to you.
     
  25. fireball87 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    #25
    Actually on a side note, didn't the last gen MBs do pretty strongly in benchmarks compared to its last gen MBP brethren (high end vs low end). Graphics have always been the main difference between the lines. Its just a slightly smaller difference. Actually I'd say a bigger note is how close all this gens MBPs and last gens MBPs benchmark.
     

Share This Page