Next year's refresh of 13 inch

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by lilcosco08, May 27, 2010.

  1. lilcosco08 macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #1
    I would enjoy a high res+antiglare option(I can't stand glossy screens) :D
    i5 would be nice, but most likely won't happen :(
     
  2. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #2
    Considering that there hasn't been a matte option on the 13" MacBook (Pro) since the iBook, it's probably unlikely.
     
  3. lilcosco08 thread starter macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #3
    Must...not...give...up...hope :p
     
  4. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #4
    Give an option for a high-res screen - 1280x800 is laughable.
     
  5. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #5
    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.
     
  6. lilcosco08 thread starter macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #6
    I say make the 15'' standard res 1680 by 1050
    and give the 13'' an option of 1440 by 900 at least :D
     
  7. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #7
    that would be perfect.
     
  8. lilcosco08 thread starter macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #8
    Now we play the waiting game
     
  9. finnns2000 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Location:
    Pineapple under the sea
    #9
    Sure is.
     
  10. lilcosco08 thread starter macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton
    #10
    Also, why the 16:10 aspect ratio:confused:
    Seems pretty odd.
    Why not just 16:9?
     
  11. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #11
    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.
     
  12. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #12
    If i5 and i7 aren't going ta happen on the 13" MBPs, I wonder what the next processor is going ta be?
     
  13. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #13
    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.

    +1 for matte option - glossy only works if you like to type in the dark.
     
  14. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #14
    Probably Core 2's until SB.
     
  15. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #15
    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?
     
  16. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #16
    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>
     
  17. entatlrg macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #17
    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.
     
  18. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
  19. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
  20. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #20
    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.
     
  21. pesc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    #21
    Give me a matte screen and I'll buy in a microsecond.

    I will never ever buy it with a glossy screen.
     
  22. AAPLaday Guest

    AAPLaday

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    #22
    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
     
  23. Amasashi macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    #23
    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.
     
  24. DesmoPilot macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #24
    Why would they put i3s in 2011? What would be the point?
     
  25. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page