The 13" MBP Is Not A Pro Machine - UPDATED TOPIC

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by shambo, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. shambo macrumors 6502a


    Apr 4, 2009
    Okay guys now that the good news is out that the latest MBP line update has surmounted to the grand total of a wet squid I believe now would be a good time to revist a favourite thread topic I first discussed last year, in that the 13" bad boy is simply not a pro machine. Just look at the differential in the specs and options to customise. The 13" should never have been classed as pro, not last year and definitely not now.

    Please discuss.
  2. Zwhaler macrumors 604


    Jun 10, 2006
    Several years back the MBP's were all Pro machines due to the real difference in hardware specs... now it is little more than marketing terminology.
  3. elfxmilhouse macrumors 6502a

    Oct 15, 2008
    Northeast USA
    i agree. pro is just a marketing term now.

    now that the 15" was updated with the i5 and i7 processors the previous core 2 duo models are getting left behind.
  4. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030


    Jan 10, 2007
    Agreed. Quoting Sir Jobs, this latest excuse for an update to the 13" is "a bag of hurt".

    My 12" Powerbook was a PRO machine. All of the Powerbooks were. They were clearly delineated in both name and appearance from the iBooks (not to be confused with the app, people) of the day.

    The 13" MBP is NOT a Pro machine. And anyone floating around here who thinks that today's update was anything other than a bag of fail is drinking from the kool-aid trough a little too much.
  5. NavySEAL6 macrumors 6502a

    Dec 13, 2006
    So disappointed, I wanted an i5 or i7 13" if I buy a 13" it's literally outdated before I pay for it?

    Come on Apple...hook up the 13" with i7 and some comparable graphics in the higher end one
  6. oHai macrumors member

    Apr 1, 2010
    I agree with the sentiment here. However, even though Apple didn't switch to an iX in the 13", I'm happy that they at least bumped the specs to distinguish this one more from the regular MacBook. Before the update, the two were basically the same machine on the inside.

    I'm going to get a new 13". I'm still using a Windows laptop from 2004 and 99% of my Mac time will be internet, word processing, email, iTunes, and other relatively light multitasking. But I agree: if you really want a PRO machine, you need to get a 15" or 17".
  7. entatlrg macrumors 68040


    Mar 2, 2009
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    disappointing for both the 13" MBP and the Air ....

    Glad I ordered a Sony Z to try out ...
  8. drew0020 macrumors 68000


    Nov 10, 2006
    The 13" update is a disgrace. C2D in a 2010 Pro machine (agree it's marketing but still.) The 13" is a perfect size for me and was what my budget called for but I will not pay these outrageous prices for such old technology.

    I really don't understand Apple with this move. They are slowly pushing me away from the Mac platform. First 4.0 and now this (this news is much worse than 4.0). I just don't get it.
  9. drew0020 macrumors 68000


    Nov 10, 2006

    Your going to pay $1,199 for the new (old) Macbook Pro?!? That's crazy!
  10. mschaef macrumors newbie

    Apr 5, 2010
    I'm not sure the prices are outrageous. In the PC space, you might compare a 13 MBP to something like a HP ProBook 5310m. There's about a $300 price bump to the MBP compared to the Probook, which gets you the following:

    • Optical Drive
    • Better Display
    • Backlit keyboard
    • More standard RAM, more optional RAM.
    • Faster CPU
    • Better Battery Life
    • MagSafe
    • MacOS X (If you value it)

    Look at it that way, and the 13" is still a pretty good deal.
  11. mschaef macrumors newbie

    Apr 5, 2010
    Another point: What does 'pro' mean? To me it's more about quality of build/support than tech specs. In that respect, there's still a major difference between the non-Pro and Pro macs.
  12. drew0020 macrumors 68000


    Nov 10, 2006
    You make some good points. I love OS X but it was $1,499 yesterday which was vastly overpriced. If it was $1,199 for the high end old new Pro I could consider it although I still wouldn't do it.

    Oh well. I have to decide on the 15" or maybe just go to windows.
  13. PutzMan macrumors newbie

    Feb 19, 2009
    Oh, but shambo, I thought you future-proofed yourself with a 15" C2D purchase? You were wrong on that count.
  14. mschaef macrumors newbie

    Apr 5, 2010
    I bought the $1,499 model a couple weeks ago... it still wan't a bad deal. Two of the other machines in the space is the Lenovo X301 which is more expensive and the X201 which is smaller.

    So many people get up in arms over the details (i5 vs c2d, IPS), etc., that they lose sight of the fact that they're all very nice machines. If an i5 is, best case, 50% faster, the vast majority of folks won't notice it at all. 50% is just not that much of a difference these days.

    What bothers me more about this particular refresh is the lack of 3G or WiMax options. We may not notice a 50% bump all that often, but universal internet is a bit of a game changer for many.
  15. drew0020 macrumors 68000


    Nov 10, 2006
    I'm just not a believer in buying old technology for a premium price. Of course Mac laptops are great but I'd prefer to have the latest and greatest especially when there are significant performance gains to be had.
  16. ippikiokami macrumors regular

    Feb 25, 2010
    Probook is a business laptop.
    Check out the
    Acer 3820T
    13.3" 1366x768 LED Backlit
    4gb Ram
    640GB HD
    ATI 5650HD 1gb DDR3
    Bluetooth 2.1
    32.4 cm x 23.5 cm x 2.9 cm
    3.9 Pounds
    8 Hours Battery Life
    3D Mark 06 10046

    Rumored around 1000-1200~. Out in other countries just not the US yet.

    And for the guy talking about the 50% difference. Considering a lot of graphics / multimedia / musical, artist use Macs they all will tell the difference easily. And you'll be able to tell the difference more and more over the life of your laptop (unless you are one of those that upgrade every year)
  17. gfiz macrumors 6502


    Dec 18, 2009
    My interpretation has always been a computer integral to someones livelihood. I use my MBP for work, and every second it adds to my productivity is an important metric to me. That is what a pro machine means to me, and frankly, none of these updates are going to be a huge boon to my productivity.
  18. mschaef macrumors newbie

    Apr 5, 2010
    Well... what amazes me is that c2d is 3-4 years old, and the latest upgrade is only a 50% bump, at best. With the 'end' of Moore's law, having the latest and greatest is a lot less important than it once was.
  19. mschaef macrumors newbie

    Apr 5, 2010
    Backing up a minute, what would it take to be a huge boon your productivity? (Honest question... think about it.)
  20. mac8867 macrumors 6502

    Apr 5, 2010
    Saint Augustine, FL
    +1 "Pro" is in the user, not the equipment.
  21. Sirmausalot macrumors 6502a


    Sep 1, 2007
    Professional: Making a living at it

    As soon as the 13" had the FW 800, it became a Pro machine for me as I could edit my HD final cut pro projects on it from my external drives. The processor is just fine for editing and the graphics card doesn't make a difference (it does for games though, and that's not a Pro use).

    I'm also able to run my on-line courses in filmmaking. So Pro is for Professional. Can you run your business, make money, and run pro apps in a 13" package? Answer for me is a simple yes I can.

    If I were in the market today though, I'd seriously consider getting the 15" for the improvements or if I had the software options, a Windows machine.

    The Final Cut Studio, compared to Avid and even Adobe's option, is getting long in the tooth without real updates to compressor and DVD Studio Pro and lame updates to Final Cut itself -- and both of those other suites are cross platform.
  22. kasakka macrumors 68020

    Oct 25, 2008
    While you ponder the meaning behind "pro", I'm getting my work done on my previous gen 13" MBP quickly and effortlessly. :p
  23. ct95 macrumors regular

    Feb 8, 2010
    Go back to Steve's keynote when he returned in 1997. He spelled out four product categories. Pro vs. Consumer. Desktop vs. Mobile. Pro = performance.

    Why did Apple go the Core2Duo route in the 13"? Could they not cram in core i5 and a discrete GPU?

    What would be better this new 13" or one with core i5 with Intel integrated graphics?

    Marketing-wise, I think possibly the latter.
  24. ippikiokami macrumors regular

    Feb 25, 2010

    To show a quick example I process about 60,000 pictures + many hours of video encoding a year.

    Just in Pictures lets say it takes me about 1 minute to go through , quick crop, quick touch up, output (Average is probably more but let's use 1 minute as a benchmark). That equals about 1000 hours a year. Say the i7 chips are about 15% (it's more in many cases) faster. I would save 150 hours or 18.75 work days (based on an 8 hour work day) a year just on the time saved if the "pro" machine had an i7 chip.

    I have no idea how much I spend in video encoding but the same formula works. I'm not sure about the new c2d processor in the 13 but if it isn't able to handle the Canon 5d II's video natively and the i7 can then that adds a ridiculous amount of hours to my workflow setting up proxy clips.
  25. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Sep 5, 2009
    I don't get people complaining about the 13".

    Most buyers don't need the extra speed from the new processors. I'm still using my black MacBook CD and I'm able to run Aperture 3, CS3 and AutoCAD 2010 at a reasonable speed.

    If you are a pro user, who edits video, photos, etc. at large quantities. Then get the 15", the 13" is clearly not for you. If you are a regular user bitching about the 13" not having all the processor speed it could potentially have, then realize that you don't really need all that speed, and that the savings you are getting are better than having something you won't use.


    And don't get me started with Blu-Ray or HDMI output. There's really no need for them. They just make the machine more expensive, and are features that are not going to be used by the vast majority of users.

Share This Page