Should the 13" even be considered "Pro"?

[nStyle]

I've owned my 13" rMBP for the past 2 years. It's a great little machine for what it is, though I'm finding it hard to use as my only computer, as much as I'd like. The truth is, when I switch over to any decently fast Windows PC build, it's a little night and day.

Here are the reasons I don't think the 13" should even bear the "Pro" name, but rather just a souped up MacBook Air. The 13" rMBP in my opinion is basically the Retina MacBook Air people have always been asking for (and it's only $300 more which makes sense).

1. No quad-core option
2. No option for > 8GB unless you want to drive the price up to as much as a 15" rMBP, at which point why not just get the 15"? (RAM is not really an issue for me - but I still find the pricing and options to be wacky)
3. No dedicated GPU option
4. Laggy OSX animations up until this point (El Capitan may introduce serious improvements, but 2-3 years later?). In general, integrated graphics are crap we all know that. But it doesn't help that it's having to power so many pixels running on a less than optimized operating system for graphics.

In conclusion, I believe the "Pro" label for the 13" is a misnomer. The 15" doesn't suffer from any of the drawbacks that the 13" does except for still some occasional GUI lag.

Don't get me wrong, my 13" has been great and does basically everything I want it to. I just don't know if I'd consider one for my next computer when I feel it's mis-marketed.

 

[brand]

A real professional knows that the Pro moniker is nothing more than a name and doesn't mean anything.

In my experience it is always the people that think they are professionals or people that are trying to buy into being a professional that have this argument. True professionals have better things to worry about than if their computer has the word pro in its name.

 

[nStyle]

A real professional knows that the Pro moniker is nothing more than a name and doesn't mean anything.

Well of course someone that makes money doing something at a specific task (ie: professional) is going to buy for their needs. That's not what this is about. Pro in this case (as designated by Apple) is meant to mean "significantly better/faster than lesser models" - to which I wouldn't agree, as I don't, with Apple.

I'm not blaming Apple for their labels or anything like that, I'm just saying they can be silly.

 

[brand]

Pro in this case (as designated by Apple) is meant to mean "significantly better/faster than lesser models"

You clearly don't understand the technology. There is no CPU in the 13" because Intel does not make one with a TDP that will fit within reason. There is an option for 16GB RAM so quit bitching. There is no dedicated GPU because of heat and better constraints. The laggy animations is a software issue and not a hardware issue. As I previously stated you clearly don't understand the technology.

 

[nStyle]

You clearly don't understand the technology. There is no CPU in the 13" because Intel does not make one with a TDP that will fit within reason. There is an option for 16GB RAM so quit bitching. There is no dedicated GPU because of heat and better constraints. The laggy animations is a software issue and not a hardware issue. As I previously stated you clearly don't understand the technology.

Ok, get heated up over a simple thread much? You're overthinking this. For the reasons you mentioned, which basically echo mine, the 13" simply shouldn't be called a "Pro" machine. Simple as that. That's my argument. You're basically just telling me I'm stupid and don't understand the limitations of size constraints. The point is that the computer doesn't technically have to be as thin as it is. The options are what they are. The options are just limited. Simple.

 

[linkgx1]

I think the idea is to UPSELL the 15'' version...IMO.

 

[z31fanatic]

The only thing "Pro" about the 13" is the price.

I agree that it doesn't deserve to be considered a Pro computer but it doesn't matter, it's just a name.
It's not as silly as the name Air. WTF does the word Air even stand for in a laptop or a tablet?

 

[garirry]

I don't mind the name, because it means nothing for me, it's marketing and marketing means nothing to actual pros.

 

[nStyle]

I don't mind the name, because it means nothing for me, it's marketing and marketing means nothing to actual pros.

Surely it does to professional marketers

 

[venom600]

You are putting far too much thought into the name. It means nothing. I use one every day at work as a project manager. Am I not a "pro"? The term Pro used to mean creative pro because that was litearlly the only segment of the pro market that wasn't dominated by Microsoft. That was 15 years ago.

 

[T5BRICK]

Here are the reasons I don't think the 13" should even bear the "Pro" name, but rather just a souped up MacBook Air. The 13" rMBP in my opinion is basically the Retina MacBook Air people have always been asking for (and it's only $300 more which makes sense).

Should Apple change the name of the MacBook Air because the retina MacBook is lighter?

We all know the "Pro" name is all marketing. The fact of the matter is the rMBP is faster than the air, it has a better screen, it has more connectivity options. It's generally better than the air in those respects, and it's priced accordingly.

 

[VesselA]

I've owned my 13" rMBP for the past 2 years. It's a great little machine for what it is, though I'm finding it hard to use as my only computer, as much as I'd like. The truth is, when I switch over to any decently fast Windows PC build, it's a little night and day.

Here are the reasons I don't think the 13" should even bear the "Pro" name, but rather just a souped up MacBook Air. The 13" rMBP in my opinion is basically the Retina MacBook Air people have always been asking for (and it's only $300 more which makes sense).

1. No quad-core option
2. No option for > 8GB unless you want to drive the price up to as much as a 15" rMBP, at which point why not just get the 15"? (RAM is not really an issue for me - but I still find the pricing and options to be wacky)
3. No dedicated GPU option
4. Laggy OSX animations up until this point (El Capitan may introduce serious improvements, but 2-3 years later?). In general, integrated graphics are crap we all know that. But it doesn't help that it's having to power so many pixels running on a less than optimized operating system for graphics.

In conclusion, I believe the "Pro" label for the 13" is a misnomer. The 15" doesn't suffer from any of the drawbacks that the 13" does except for still some occasional GUI lag.

Don't get me wrong, my 13" has been great and does basically everything I want it to. I just don't know if I'd consider one for my next computer when I feel it's mis-marketed.

this may be due to your macbook being 2 years old. The new PCIE SSDs have doubled the read and write speed for copying files, moving them about and so on, and the faster ram makes the 2015 version very snappy indeed.

the only time I've noticed lag is trying to edit 4K video in iMovie, but 1080p is smooth and effortless.

when considering which macbook to go with I also wondered if the 13" deserves the pro title, as the intel iris graphics are not even the pro version as in the 15" but in practice the 13" actually has a feature the 15" doesn't which I would probably have paid the amount for the 15" if it had had it. That is silent fanless operation for 90% of activity.

Because the 13" has a less intensive CPU and graphics card it doesn't need to activate or rev up the fans as often as the more powerful 15". So I can watch 1080p youtube video, run 4K video on the 4K external display with the computer remaining totally silent. You can also run as many safari tabs as you like, run some "pro" applications like logic pro with multiple tracks with the machine remaining totally quiet.

If you don't mind fan noise, or have gotten used to it over the years then it might not be a big of a deal, but for me and I know many others having a computer that can do so much in silence is actually worth more than what the 15" has to offer.

Also lets go full hog and really question, "does the 15" deserve the title pro?" - because the graphics card is not really pro, even the dedicated version is not among the highest end. If you really want a pro machine that is almost limitless in a laptop you want a graphics card like an NVIDIA 970M or 980M, then you can really game at a high level and do the most intensive things like 3D animation really fluently.

In practice if you are a pro or advanced musician, photographer, graphic designer, web designer the 13" is more than capable of being your main machine (2015 version anyway). The only thing I can think it is worth going for the 15" for is if you want to edit massive 4K videos or run very intensive graphics programs. To me having silent operation most of the time is worth more than having extra power with the annoying fan noise ramping up more often

 

[venom600]

because the graphics card is not really pro, even the dedicated version is not among the highest end. If you really want a pro machine that is almost limitless in a laptop you want a graphics card like an NVIDIA 970M or 980M, then you can really game at a high level and do the most intensive things like 3D animation really fluently.

Real pro workstations don't bother with consumer gaming GPUs. They use AMD Fire Pro and nVidia Quadro graphics (take a look at the Lenovo Thinkpad W and P workstations or the Dell Precision workstations for example). Despite what everyone says, the 15" has a dGPU that is roughly equivalent to every other high end non-gaming notebook out there. No one is putting a 980m in anything but gaming notebooks that get 3 hours of battery life (an exaggeration, but not by much).

 

[VesselA]

Real pro workstations don't bother with consumer gaming GPUs. They use AMD Fire Pro and nVidia Quadro graphics (take a look at the Lenovo Thinkpad W and P workstations or the Dell Precision workstations for example). Despite what everyone says, the 15" has a dGPU that is roughly equivalent to every other high end non-gaming notebook out there. No one is putting a 980m in anything but gaming notebooks that get 3 hours of battery life (an exaggeration, but not by much).

well the NVIDIA 970M or 980M is more of a pro graphics card than whats in the 15" now, it would also translate to much more capable graphics performance in advanced 3D modelling and rendering, not just for gaming.

Apple keep putting substandard graphics cards in their macbook pros either to save money or because they are too thin to manage the heat


(update: Just did a bit of checking and current AMD dedicated graphics card in 15" is 30% slower than the NVIDIA 950M, which is not as powerful as the 970 or 980)

Referred to here as a "mid-range" graphics card -
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M370X.142763.0.html

hadn't heard of the Quadro before I wonder if its even more capable and powerful than the 980M

 

[venom600]

well the NVIDIA 970M or 980M is more of a pro graphics card than whats in the 15" now, it would also translate to much more capable graphics performance in advanced 3D modelling and rendering, not just for gaming.

Apple keep putting substandard graphics cards in their macbook pros either to save money or because they are too thin to manage the heat

The 970, and 980m are gaming graphics cards. They are not built to the same standard that pro 3D graphics cards are. The Quadro and Fire Pro lines (there are many variations) are thousands of dollars in desktop applications (go price the graphics in the Mac Pro on the open market) and are aimed at 3D modeling, not frame rates.

Apple doesn't include professional level 3D graphics in anything it sells except for the Mac Pro. There's a reason why Oculus gave up on development for OS X, citing the fact that Apple hasn't cared about performance in years.

Again, I challenge you to show me a non-gaming oriented machine in production today with substantially more graphics power than the Macbook Pro at a similar price point. Dell doesn't make one. The XPS 15 still uses the 750M. HP doesn't either.

 

[Toutou]

"Introducing the new 13 inch unibody MacBook Lame."

 

[Queen6]

The choice of hardware has never defined anybody to be a professional, equally it speaks volumes of people who consider themselves so, solely due to their choice of hardware...

Personally I would be fine with Apple if they dropped the "Pro" moniker on their portables, it`s 2015, not 2006. I would even prefer if Apple brought back the "PowerBook" branding, at least MacBook Pro is no longer emblazoned on the bezel

Q-6

 

[zhenya]

I've owned my 13" rMBP for the past 2 years. It's a great little machine for what it is, though I'm finding it hard to use as my only computer, as much as I'd like. The truth is, when I switch over to any decently fast Windows PC build, it's a little night and day.

Here are the reasons I don't think the 13" should even bear the "Pro" name, but rather just a souped up MacBook Air. The 13" rMBP in my opinion is basically the Retina MacBook Air people have always been asking for (and it's only $300 more which makes sense).

1. No quad-core option
2. No option for > 8GB unless you want to drive the price up to as much as a 15" rMBP, at which point why not just get the 15"? (RAM is not really an issue for me - but I still find the pricing and options to be wacky)
3. No dedicated GPU option
4. Laggy OSX animations up until this point (El Capitan may introduce serious improvements, but 2-3 years later?). In general, integrated graphics are crap we all know that. But it doesn't help that it's having to power so many pixels running on a less than optimized operating system for graphics.

In conclusion, I believe the "Pro" label for the 13" is a misnomer. The 15" doesn't suffer from any of the drawbacks that the 13" does except for still some occasional GUI lag.

Don't get me wrong, my 13" has been great and does basically everything I want it to. I just don't know if I'd consider one for my next computer when I feel it's mis-marketed.

The 13" Pro is deserving of the name because it is considerably better equipped than the majority of PC laptops on the market that most 'pros' (whatever that means) do their work on. There is no quad-core option, but neither is there in any Windows laptop anywhere near the size of the 13" Pro because there is no suitable chip available from Intel to put in there. The CPU they do use however, has a TDP of 28w compared to the 15w part that is by far the most common one used in most 'professional' Windows laptops (yet Apple reserves this chip for their Air line), and for most users the dual core chip is the better option because it consumes less power and actually has slightly better single-thread performance than the quad-core chips, which is more representative of how the vast majority of people use their laptops. The same goes for the GPU - Intel GPU's are more than adequate for the vast majority of professional work done, and are good on battery (which matters to many professionals) and don't require extra space inside the chassis which means smaller, lighter laptops and again, better battery life at a given size.

 

[lowendlinux]

First you have to define pro once you do that then we can discuss whether it is or not.

 

[Ray2]

I just don't know if I'd consider one for my next computer when I feel it's mis-marketed.

With a philosophical approach like that, between product naming and advertising descriptions, there's not much you'll be buying. I rather buy based on getting the job I want done. Which the 13" Pro appears to have done for you.

 

[spiderman0616]

I work from home, and I have a pretty big workstation setup. I have a work issued Dell laptop that I have to use during the day, two huge widescreen monitors, a nice sound system, and a bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I have the monitors hooked up to DVI selectors so I can switch back and forth between my work PC and my Macbook Pro without having to unplug cables.

Because of its power, its availability of ports, and OSX's ability to operate in closed lid mode, I am able to plug my 13" Macbook Pro into my elaborate workstation setup and have it run everything without breaking a sweat. I do my podcast using this setup, I edit video, I game on high to ultra high settings, and the list goes on. My Macbook Pro handles all of these tasks without breaking a sweat, whereas my Mac mini did not fare so well in these situations.

That's not to mention that when I take it on the go, I have the same versatility and power in a thin and light laptop with a GORGEOUS display. I chose the 13" on purpose because of its portability, and I haven't once regretted it. By far the best laptop I've ever owned.

 

[Razeus]

Nope. "Pro" = quad core at least. My 13" Dell XPS is a much better performer.

 

[Steve121178]

Yes, the 13" is a Pro machine to me as I use mine to perform Professional work.

 

[Steve121178]

Nope. "Pro" = quad core at least.

Rubbish.

I can run multiple VM's on a dual-core CPU and run a multitude of other apps in the background. The CPU has never been a bottleneck. Of course if people need even more power then get a quad core, but the 13" Pro is a highly capable machine.

 

[Steve121178]

Don't get me wrong, my 13" has been great and does basically everything I want it to. I just don't know if I'd consider one for my next computer when I feel it's mis-marketed.

You buy a machine based on your requirements and how much you are prepared to pay. If you end up buying the wrong computer then it's completely YOUR fault and not the fault of Apple/Dell/HP/etc.