I would enjoy a high res+antiglare option(I can't stand glossy screens) 
i5 would be nice, but most likely won't happen
i5 would be nice, but most likely won't happen
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next year's refresh of 13 inch
- Thread starter lilcosco08
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Considering that there hasn't been a matte option on the 13" MacBook (Pro) since the iBook, it's probably unlikely.
Must...not...give...up...hope
I didn't say it wouldn't happen, just that it's unlikely. The 15" MacBook Pro did get back the matte option after going glossy only. But it had a matte option since its inception before that.
I say make the 15'' standard res 1680 by 1050
and give the 13'' an option of 1440 by 900 at least
I say make the 15'' standard res 1680 by 1050
and give the 13'' and option of 1440 by 900 at least
that would be perfect.
I think it would be nice if they offered the 13" in glossy or anti glare and 1280x800 or 1440x900; the 15" in glossy or antiglare and 1440x900 or 1680x1050; and the 17" in glossy or antiglare and 1680x1050 or 1920x1200
this seems ideal to me.
this seems ideal to me.
If i5 and i7 aren't going ta happen on the 13" MBPs, I wonder what the next processor is going ta be?
I think the idea was that you could have the control panel at the bottom. But, since they always pop up on full screen now, I agree with you-- make it 16:9 -- that way, when you mirror displays with your HDMI-connected TV, they match.Also, why the 16:10 aspect ratio
Seems pretty odd.
Why not just 16:9?
+1 for matte option - glossy only works if you like to type in the dark.
Also, why the 16:10 aspect ratio
Seems pretty odd.
Why not just 16:9?
16:9 is for HDTV and not much else. Movies are almost always wider than 16:9 unless they are cropped for broadcast. Why do you want a shorter wider screen, the real issue of course being the height?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2933
Fast IGP, on-die and everything. Should support OpenCL too, SB's might not (we already know it won't do DX11, so I wouldn't hold my breath for OCL).
Oh wait, never mind, I forgot: AMD only makes bargain barrel crap and has a totally different ISA from Intel requiring the sort of mess of the PPC/Intel switch all over again. </sarcasmandpeopleshouldlearn2wikipedia>
I say make the 15'' standard res 1680 by 1050
and give the 13'' an option of 1440 by 900 at least
Not until they have resolution independence to adjust fonts.
Look how many Hi res 15" MBP's are being returned to Apple Stores and sent back to Apple in exchange for the 1440 x 900 screen.... ask about it at your local Apple store ...
There's nothing 'laughable' about the screen on the 13" MBP ... put it's low resolution screen beside any pc laptop, even the famous hi res Sony Z and the MBP looks not just as good but better.
My local Apple store (Pacific Center Vancouver BC) gets loads of orders for the HR screens and next to no returns (or so I was told a week ago). As for the people returning them; I'm convinced those people are nearly blind; I've never had the slightest problem reading on my HR screen - it feels very natural.
The screen itself isn't the issue I have with the 13" - its the resolution. Having dealt with it on the MacBook I had before this MBP; the low resolution hampered productivity for me and made multi-tasking a pain.
Per haps you guys should get the white MacBook until Apple offer a matte option for the 13" MBP. It has no glass on the front and is much less reflective
I think there's a good possibility that 2011's MacBook Pro 13" will have Core i3 processors.
Other than that, they'll probably just bump up the hard drive a bit, maybe a minor graphics bump. Memory will probably stay the same though.
I don't know if Apple will make the screen 16:9. Some thought the 2010 model would follow the iMacs and go 16:9, but that didn't happen. 16:9 laptops, especially those with smaller screens, are not that great to use. I think the only reason why Apple went 16:9 on the iMac was because they were trying to sell the new 27" display.
Other than that, they'll probably just bump up the hard drive a bit, maybe a minor graphics bump. Memory will probably stay the same though.
I don't know if Apple will make the screen 16:9. Some thought the 2010 model would follow the iMacs and go 16:9, but that didn't happen. 16:9 laptops, especially those with smaller screens, are not that great to use. I think the only reason why Apple went 16:9 on the iMac was because they were trying to sell the new 27" display.
There are rumors Apple is in talk with AMD. If Apple insists on using integrated graphics instead of using a dedicated GPU, I can see what Apple is trying to do.
AMD is better than Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, it's just Intel made a big step with their i5 and i7 models.
So Apple could consider switching to AMD with it's integrated GPU solution. And the GPU from AMD is an extremely powerfull GPU by todays standard. So who knows, AMD fusion in the next years MBP? It's in improvement in CPU & GPU. ( i'm talking about the new AMD architecture that's coming out next year )
But best would be Sandy bridge + dedicated GPU.