Assuming I want a Macbook that is 3lb or lighter... I have to choose between the current Macbook Pro 13” or the current MacBook Air? It seems like the update that is coming for the MacBook Pro 13” may not be what I am looking for
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.
So the MacBook Pro 13/14 inch will get bigger and heavier?
- Thread starter Adelphos33
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
16" got 0.3 pounds heavier and 0.25-0.25" wider and taller, 0.05" thicker for larger screen, much better keyboard, and better cooling system. I would expect the 14" to grown by similar amount. No way would I buy a 2019 13" with the old keyboard to save this little space and weight.
I have noticed no difference in carrying around my 2019 16" versus 2018 15".
I have noticed no difference in carrying around my 2019 16" versus 2018 15".
I don't find the 16" much different than my 2018 15". It is only 0.3 pounds heavier and still lighter than my 2015 15".
The different between the air and a 14" MBP will come down to needs. If you don't need the processing power and storage of a Pro, get an Air.
14.1" 16:10 display:
11.96" wide
7.47" tall
If the side bezels are ~5mm like the 16" (plus an extra couple of mm for the silver lip), then you're looking at a machine about 12.44 inches wide. That's a fraction more than the 2015 13" MacBook Pro (12.35") so that's probably about the footprint you're looking at, but still thinner (as the 16" is to the 2015 15"). Weight wise, it will probably put on a bit, but that's the price to pay for good battery life. It's not going to be a game changing difference.
11.96" wide
7.47" tall
If the side bezels are ~5mm like the 16" (plus an extra couple of mm for the silver lip), then you're looking at a machine about 12.44 inches wide. That's a fraction more than the 2015 13" MacBook Pro (12.35") so that's probably about the footprint you're looking at, but still thinner (as the 16" is to the 2015 15"). Weight wise, it will probably put on a bit, but that's the price to pay for good battery life. It's not going to be a game changing difference.
If you think the 16” is “big and heavy” then it’s not for you, and you probably don’t need it...and you sure must be new to computers, because even a few years ago the “super thin and light” Retina models were reasonably bigger and a lot heavier.
The 14 will almost certainly grow in size & weight by tiny amounts vs. the current 13.3...it’s a “pro” laptop. And it will still be crazy thin & light for its given performance. If that’s still too much, then I would strongly suggest you look at an Air, because if you really need the power, a machine that’s slightly heavier & bigger than one of the smallest & lightest laptops money can buy wouldn’t be a deterrent. Something to think about.
The 14 will almost certainly grow in size & weight by tiny amounts vs. the current 13.3...it’s a “pro” laptop. And it will still be crazy thin & light for its given performance. If that’s still too much, then I would strongly suggest you look at an Air, because if you really need the power, a machine that’s slightly heavier & bigger than one of the smallest & lightest laptops money can buy wouldn’t be a deterrent. Something to think about.
The current MPB 16" would not have been considered "thin and light" even a decade ago. MacBook Air general form factor has been around for a very long time, and that's what's come to define "thin and light" in laptops.
16" is a fine laptop for those who need the ultimate power on the go, but it can reasonably be considered a large and heavy laptop by most any modern standard.. This is not a laptop you can use in an airplane economy seat, which alone is a dealbreaker to many.
If you consider the number of cores it contains and how large of an enclosure 10 cores would have required a decade ago, I postulate it would still be considered thin and light for an 8 core machine containing terabytes of storage.
If you consider the number of cores it contains and how large of an enclosure 10 cores would have required a decade ago, I postulate it would still be considered thin and light for an 8 core machine containing terabytes of storage.
Well, no - you're making a completely different argument. There is no doubt it would take a small mainframe to reproduce the power of modern computing devices a few decade ago.
But a modern laptop that measures 1.5ft, weight 4.5lbs and you can't use in an airplane.. is STILL 1.5ft, 4.5lbs laptop that you can't use on an airplane a decade ago. The amount of compute they pack in a laptop doesn't change that