My two cents:
The early-2011 has Snow Leopard. Lion (late-2011) is a CPU hog and all of those reports of battery life plummeting because of Lion are worthwhile.
The newer CPU speeds are meaningless if Apple hasn't addressed the underlying power problem that plagued the early-2011 models - and they haven't. (the reason the 17" MBP outperforms the same 15" sibling despite having identical hardware is because the 15" MBP is slowing down due to lack of power. The 17"'s internal battery barely provides enough and the 15"'s smaller battery cannot cope. The AC supply's wattage is so low that the thing gets to scalding hot temperatures when the MBP is plugged in and used.
Benchmarks:
http://www.macworld.com/article/157893/2011/02/2011macbookpro_benchmarks.html
(note the 17"'s better performance)
I always wondered why, until I stumbled on this:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review...-GHz-quad-core-glare-type-screen.50346.0.html
(a-throttling-we-will-go...)
With proper AC adapters, these things would make actual full use of the CPU. But if the 2.2GHz didn't go all the way at turbo, 2.4GHz certainly won't go all the way either.
The late-2011 at the store also has an unevenly-lit keyboard. Far worse than my early-2011's. Apple needs to get a professional manufacturing company to do the work for a $2500 laptop or else they seem content to look like mud, by advertising a polished prim unit and selling something that looks slopped together. For $2500, people expect better results.
To say nothing of overheating and how some bloke replaced the thermal grease and got cooling down to acceptable levels:
http://my2011macbookpro.com/replacing-thermal-paste-on-the-cpu-and-gpu-results/
(that's page 2. Page 1 has the real shocker - of how unprofessional the application of the thermal paste was... my first early-2011 I exchanged because of these issues (keyboard, 101C when doing 3D rendering or compiling), but the second one fared far better (90C, which was lower than even my 17" 2009 MBP!, and a near-consistent keyboard backlight. The display issue is minor by comparison, but something with Apple or the companies it contacts to in order to do the work is amiss. )
Get one that works, and make exchanges if you must. And always get the extended warranty. Even under the best manufacturing conditions, problems can happen. The level of degree of complaints, and number of people complaining online, but I did read recently Apple has been investigating its suppliers, which is a very good sign.
----------
Early-2011 is the best choice. The 100 or 200 MHz more (Late-2011) do not mean higher performance in real applications.
On Early-2011 models you can:
- use Snow Leopard or Lion
- use Windows XP SP3, Vista or Windows 7 SP1 via Boot Camp or VMware Fusion/Parallels
- use Internet Recovery within Lion (requires a firmware update); yes that is true
- use all apps which are optimized for Snow Leopard & Sandy Bridge (x264 encoder (in HandBrake, for example))
- use up to 32 GB RAM (current limit: 16 GB)
On Late-2011 models you can:
- NOT use Snow Leopard (VM solutions excluded)
- NOT use Windows XP SP3 or Vista via Boot Camp
So the advantage of the Late-2011 models is pretty small.
Pity that people blindly think "newer is better" - but (
if sellers still trust the online auction systems and buyers and their purported integrity) online auction and selling services would be a great place to find early-2011 units. Especially if AppleCare is included, where the warranty can be transferred.
Once a early-2011 MBP owner applies the latest firmware, does SL become unusable? That's the only factor I can think of as to why early-2011 and late-2011 would be SL-unfriendly...
