Or they could have pulled an Acer and given both, with i5 cpu and 5650 option in the 13in TimlineX. And from the Euro review out there battery life is pretty solid(with integrated gpu on that is) with that GPU combo and with Apples work it could have been even better.
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.
Steve Jobs on 13-Inch MacBook Pro's Use of Intel Core 2 Duo Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which would be a HUGE improvement over the 9400m. That alone, were it true, would convince me to grab the 13" in a heartbeat.
Is it me or are people forgetting the lower-end MBPs are 13"?
I myself have been looking for a cheaper equivalent to Apple's 13" notebooks, and here in Australia at least, there are none. All the other manufacturers seem to have declared 13" to a ULV form factor, and use lower clocked ULV processors. And when they do offer upgrades to processors as fast as those on Apple's notebooks, it brings the price up to near parity.
And, of course, there's no Core i3/i5 to be found on any 13" laptop here. Perhaps the US is flooded with cheap 13" Core i5 laptops, but not us.
I myself have been looking for a cheaper equivalent to Apple's 13" notebooks, and here in Australia at least, there are none. All the other manufacturers seem to have declared 13" to a ULV form factor, and use lower clocked ULV processors. And when they do offer upgrades to processors as fast as those on Apple's notebooks, it brings the price up to near parity.
And, of course, there's no Core i3/i5 to be found on any 13" laptop here. Perhaps the US is flooded with cheap 13" Core i5 laptops, but not us.
most likely no. that is exactly what applecare is for. you arent entitled to a new machine
Granted I didn't have a MBP right next to it for comparison but the Vaio Z was plenty thin enough when I checked it out at the Sony store. And this is coming from someone unpleasantly surprised in that regard when I was looking at PC alternatives. It's not a criticizing factor at all IMO.
Here's what happened - they see how popular the 13" MBPs are becoming, and if they release them alongside the 15" models today, many might have (including myself) opted for a smaller laptop. They're trying to get as much discretionary spending from us. That's why they released the iPad before new laptops... and that's why they failed to release a 13" version.
I think some are simply upset that the Mac is finally getting more gaming options (Steam, Cider conversions, etc.) only to be frustrated that Steve isn't putting out powerful enough equipment to take full advantage of it (Cider ports need MORE power, not less). Maybe Steve could throw some users a bone and produce a Mac for gamers to love (and they could use Boot Camp to run the stuff that's still not available). How about a solid mid-range quad-core desktop with a top-notch graphics card around the $1500 range (I could build one for less than $1200 to hack)? How about supporting SLI in OSX? How about considering licensing DirectX and Direct3D from M$ like they did for Exchange so the inevitable PORTS can run FULL SPEED instead of being slowed by Cider and OpenGL (which has NOT kept up with DirectX/3D over the years). Apple has money to burn. Why not put it to good use and give us the OSX extensions (don't forget those hardware APIs for GPU decoding of video, etc. to 3rd parties so people don't laugh at Flash on the Mac) and hardware we DESERVE instead of telling us to go buy a PS3 or a PC to game, Steve? And get over your bag of hurt already, Steve. Some of us WANT Blu-Ray and I don't think the $29 it would cost to license it per machine is that big a bag of "hurt". Just throw it onto the price for the models that include it and let the user pay the fee. Sheesh.
That's right because I believe you shouldn't have arrogance unless you can back it up. That's not how I was raised but rather what I learned. There isn't any genius (or great person) who wasn't arrogant. This includes Jobs.
Like I said I wished (earlier in the thread) that they had put in a faster processor. I'm sure that many would want a faster GPU considering that there are more apps, like Pixelmator, that are more so dependant on the GPU.
They would need a discrete graphics chip then. That would burn more power and cost more.
I'm just noticing that the graph they used is almost completely meaningless. What is the baseline? I assume they mean the graphics performance in last generation Macs but which game? They can't all have had the same framerate.
Each bar therefore is comparing the performance of each game against it's performance on the previous generation, there is no need for a baseline. What was the previous generation's performance? If it was 20FPS then the increases seen here will make the games playable. If they were over 60FPS anyway because they are aging games, the increase won't be noticed because the human eye can't tell the difference over 60FPS. But we can't know because actual framerates aren't included.
Each bar therefore is comparing the performance of each game against it's performance on the previous generation, there is no need for a baseline. What was the previous generation's performance? If it was 20FPS then the increases seen here will make the games playable. If they were over 60FPS anyway because they are aging games, the increase won't be noticed because the human eye can't tell the difference over 60FPS. But we can't know because actual framerates aren't included.
To all complainers of the "I can get a computer with better specs from manufacturer X" variety:
Apple sells high margin hardware. "High margin" means (from a consumer perspective) that you pay more money for less stuff.
They manage to pull this off because they have a crackerjack design team that can (1) create a good user experience on mediocre hardware and (2) create beautiful products that their customers can be proud to own.
This is the way Apple has done business for years. If you are not okay with that, then you are not the kind of customer Apple has in mind when they design their products.
Apple sells high margin hardware. "High margin" means (from a consumer perspective) that you pay more money for less stuff.
They manage to pull this off because they have a crackerjack design team that can (1) create a good user experience on mediocre hardware and (2) create beautiful products that their customers can be proud to own.
This is the way Apple has done business for years. If you are not okay with that, then you are not the kind of customer Apple has in mind when they design their products.
Go with the 15" like Jobs wants you to!
I caved. Not proud, but I caved. I was all set to buy a new 13" MBP, and even posted a few arguments that the limited refresh was just fine, even with C2D. I still think that. But I got to Best Buy, and that 15" wonder was starting me in the face. i5, video switching, etc., etc. I do some work with photos, nothing major, and the 15" will make that easier. Sure, I spent a little more, but long term, I couldn't end up talking myself into the same arguments I'd been delivering here earlier in the day. C2D is an older processor. Simple as that. And for a few hundred more, I got a WAY better machine, me thinks. To all who buy a new MBP in the next few days, enjoy, no matter if it's a 13", 15" or 17". Worth the wait, one and all!
I caved. Not proud, but I caved. I was all set to buy a new 13" MBP, and even posted a few arguments that the limited refresh was just fine, even with C2D. I still think that. But I got to Best Buy, and that 15" wonder was starting me in the face. i5, video switching, etc., etc. I do some work with photos, nothing major, and the 15" will make that easier. Sure, I spent a little more, but long term, I couldn't end up talking myself into the same arguments I'd been delivering here earlier in the day. C2D is an older processor. Simple as that. And for a few hundred more, I got a WAY better machine, me thinks. To all who buy a new MBP in the next few days, enjoy, no matter if it's a 13", 15" or 17". Worth the wait, one and all!
Why is 13" excluded though? Shouldn't we be able to choose which size laptop we like?
This is what I never get. Apple treats laptops like the bigger, the better and the more expensive.
I had a Powerbook G4 back in the day and had a lot of trouble with the logic board. When I took it in to the local Mac store for it's 3rd replacement the fella behind the counter told me to get on to Apple as they had a policy of replacing a machine when either a major component failed 3 times or 3 major components failed (if the machine was still under warranty obviously). I rang Apple and they replaced the machine without any fuss. Have to admit, that was the day I fell in love with Apple's customer service!
So you had quite a life, right, but you're barking in the wrong forum buddy. No one cares. All of us have our own crap to deal with, you're no special snowflake so keep that stuff off here.
Now back on track, I agree with the other poster that said that the biggest let down for the 13 inch would be the lack of screen options like higher res or even a matte display. If the i3 is really is not significantly faster as the C2D then that is just fine. Anyway I withhold any more judgment until actual benchmarks come.
the 9400m was a little over 50% of how powerful the 8600m was (I think 55%). seeing that the 320m is 40~80% more powerful than the 9400m I would imagine it's equal to the 8600m or a little less powerful (give or take 5~10%).
side note: the 9600m a rebranded 8600m with a little boost in speed.
For those who want a portable game machine to run the new HITS, the Alienware M11x is a great choice !
For those who want a built in quality laptop, big battery life and play sometimes to old games, the MBP 13" is a great choice !
All is about your need
Honestly, serious gamers aren't going to be running 13" MBP's anyway. They are either running Macs with discreet video chipsets, or PC gaming machines. While I can and do run Wow occasionally on my 13" MBP, I can't max the settings out. Thankfully, I'm a super casual gamer.
The screen is so small it just isn't a very good gaming machine.
Thanks.
I was starting to think that I was crazy.
Glossy screen is a deal breaker for me, specially in such an expensive piece of equipment.
SJ can say whatever he wants, but C2D is old technology, not worth paying $1200.
I'm really disappointed. I was hoping that the 13" could include i5 and a non-glossy option.
The way I see it, Apple wants you to go to the expensive 15" if you want something other than the bare minimum.
At least before one could get non glossy option without paying the upgrade to "hi-res" display, which BTW should be standard.
I really wanted to switch to OS-X, but it won't pay the 15" premium just to have a decent non-glossy screen
I agree with this it's a very nice to have.
Yeah in general the smallest 1080p monitors are 22" if I recall, 1080p on computers have only been more recent. As most computer monitors prior that are Widescreen have the 16:10 aspect ratio.
We do have 1920x1200 on 17" Laptops, but I agree that 1080p at 13" is a bit too microscopic, I have seen 1366x768 on a 10" Netbook, and it's a little to dense for my taste. I think 1440x900 would probably be the most we should get at 13".
I also think the 1680x1050 option for the 15" is perfect.
Just a quick poll...how many of you are going to switch to a windows computer because this update wasnt substantial enough? Just wondering. Im just wondering how loyal Apple's fans really are lol