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.
The 13" MBP Is Not A Pro Machine - UPDATED TOPIC
- Thread starter shambo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK i feel like i should make a critical point here as most of you seem to not take it into consideration.
The average MBP buyer (13") is the average Joe. The user that will use it to check his email, go to Facebook write a paper, use skype and so on and so forth. All these tasks running together will load the C2D 2.26 processor at most 20%. And the average Joe has absolutely no idea what a C2D is. Nor does he care as long as it completes those task blazingly fast (wich the 2.26 excels at). He wants a reliable and well buil computer (aluminum chasis), no viruses (OSX), and a relatively cheap price (1199), and of course he wants to take it around (4.5 pounds) and show it off a bit (MacBook PRO i repeat PRO although he is no pro). This is the buyer Apple is going after hence they will not put a 2.26 i3 but rather a 2.4 C2D because the average Joe will not know the i3 is faster...He doesn't even know that an i3 exists. That is the kind of user Apple is targeting with their 13" MBP. Numbers proved them to be quite correct on their choice as the 13" base MBP was the best selling mac since it was introduced back in June. So Apple sees not need to put an iX processor in the base 13".
When it comes to the PRO customers (people that make a living out of that MBP) that are at most 10% of all MBP owners Apple gives them 2 choices of screen size 3 choices of resolution and 3 choices of processors to chose from. I mean why is these minority of customers complaining?...If that is not enough for you the i7 IMac and mac pros will definitely be.
You all have to understand that you are a minority and as with all minorities your word doesn't count as much. Even if all of you stopped buying MBP right now Apple wont even feel it. They got enough Joes to make billions on. Its sad but thats how it is...
The average MBP buyer (13") is the average Joe. The user that will use it to check his email, go to Facebook write a paper, use skype and so on and so forth. All these tasks running together will load the C2D 2.26 processor at most 20%. And the average Joe has absolutely no idea what a C2D is. Nor does he care as long as it completes those task blazingly fast (wich the 2.26 excels at). He wants a reliable and well buil computer (aluminum chasis), no viruses (OSX), and a relatively cheap price (1199), and of course he wants to take it around (4.5 pounds) and show it off a bit (MacBook PRO i repeat PRO although he is no pro). This is the buyer Apple is going after hence they will not put a 2.26 i3 but rather a 2.4 C2D because the average Joe will not know the i3 is faster...He doesn't even know that an i3 exists. That is the kind of user Apple is targeting with their 13" MBP. Numbers proved them to be quite correct on their choice as the 13" base MBP was the best selling mac since it was introduced back in June. So Apple sees not need to put an iX processor in the base 13".
When it comes to the PRO customers (people that make a living out of that MBP) that are at most 10% of all MBP owners Apple gives them 2 choices of screen size 3 choices of resolution and 3 choices of processors to chose from. I mean why is these minority of customers complaining?...If that is not enough for you the i7 IMac and mac pros will definitely be.
You all have to understand that you are a minority and as with all minorities your word doesn't count as much. Even if all of you stopped buying MBP right now Apple wont even feel it. They got enough Joes to make billions on. Its sad but thats how it is...
i feel you there.. i was in the store picking a 13 tonight and this 20 something girl was talking to some sales guy and wanted a 15 for school.. the sales said 13 is better for her.. he also told her a new one just came out today with all the specs upgraded.. she was like oh cool.... didn't ask what was updated or how much faster.. took it.. paid and bounced..
that's a joe.. i'm a joe too.. since my pro work needs PC.. so i picked up the 13 for 1099 considering what it was yesterday.. it's still an upgrade nonetheless.. especially the graphics and streaming video/audio thru hdmi using one cable for my mkv files
Well said and very true.
Even to go further many people who follow the industry a little and know a tad bit about C2D, i3, i5, i7 etc ... a high percentage of these people don't need the extra power they're longing for.
Apple has a way of getting their hardware to work well together, dated parts or not, running OSX goes well with their notebooks that are 2-3 years old now...
One moment I'm defending the updates, the next I'm criticizing it ... I'd be a lot less critical if they had of done an update to the MacBook Air ....
So, you are telling us it's OK for Apple to sell outdated laptops and charge a ton of money for them because average customer is dumb?
A successful company plans their product based on the customers they plan to adhere. The average Joe will be more than happy with his 1099 MBP. Apple will be happier with the greater profit margin. Let me repeat it once more People like you are a minority and as a minority your opinion doesn't really matter. The MacBook pro will still be selling like hot cakes, world will move on, and you will still be in this forum complaining even if they put xeons on the next MBP. if Apple listened to people like you they would have been called DELL by now...
Why would you care. if its not enough for you they have 15" and 17" PRO's that come with i7. Just go for that and let the average Joe have a MBP of his own for 1099.
I'm curious which C2D cpu model designation is used currently in the 2010 13" MBP and how much more performance does today's update offer beyond my 2009 uMB_Aluminum?!
I have 4GB DDR3 1066Mhz
nVidia GeForece 9400M
320GB HDD
all still under original warranty but I'll upgrade.
The MAIN thing is improved graphics chipset for better OpenGL/OpenCL support down the road!
Still USB3.0 across the lineup & 2.66Ghz cpu C2D with 3.06Ghz option at bare minimum would be nice; but I'll bet the HEAT with using Aluminum was a primary concern for 6hrs+ use.
Also ANY Pro Desktop or Laptop from Apple should HAVE separate Audio In & Out ports.
I have 4GB DDR3 1066Mhz
nVidia GeForece 9400M
320GB HDD
all still under original warranty but I'll upgrade.
The MAIN thing is improved graphics chipset for better OpenGL/OpenCL support down the road!
Still USB3.0 across the lineup & 2.66Ghz cpu C2D with 3.06Ghz option at bare minimum would be nice; but I'll bet the HEAT with using Aluminum was a primary concern for 6hrs+ use.
Also ANY Pro Desktop or Laptop from Apple should HAVE separate Audio In & Out ports.
Are you a professional user? If so, what professional projects do you work on that require higher specs from a 13" laptop, but aren't demanding enough to require at least a 15"?
What kind of profession is it that you are engaged in that makes it of such concern to you that the new 13" didn't receive a greater spec boost? As a professional, how much money or time do you think you will lose over the next six months because of the new 13" machines perceived limitations? If you see yourself losing more than the difference in cost between the 13" and 15", your professional business acumen will tell you the 15" would be more suitable.
Or is it really all about how much your parents are willing to give you to pay for your new MBP, with the 13" being the limit of their generosity? Maybe that's why they are called "Pros" – because they are often bought by professionals to give to their kids to play with.
The MacBook Air came out a little ahead it's time, which is why it hasn't been selling very well. Perhaps the next update (assuming an update occurs) will fix that.
Just drop the PRO moniker and revert the 13" back to being a MB and disband of the white 13".
It's really quite simple.
Hey Shambo,
If you look at how the i7 spanks the previous generation of MacBook Pros, it's quite apparent that your BadBoy was sadly not future proof. Sucks to be you. You should get a hat with your really sweet image featured in your signature and wear it around to make you feel better about yourself.
If you look at how the i7 spanks the previous generation of MacBook Pros, it's quite apparent that your BadBoy was sadly not future proof. Sucks to be you. You should get a hat with your really sweet image featured in your signature and wear it around to make you feel better about yourself.
That is exactly where you fail to understand Apple marketing. They had the same product in 2009 with the al UMB but it simply failed. By giving it the pro moniker they made it the best selling mac in the lineup. People buy apple because its high end and they much rather have a "PRO" than a standart white MB. That explains the sales of base MBP vs MB. Plus why would you care if the 13" is a Pro? Does it cost you anything? Does it interfere with something? If it doesn't meet your demands go with the 15 and 17. Im really amused with you people hating on a product that much.
Everyone of you who does not know what Pro as short term for Professional means by definition is just a little spec whore. And I see a lot in here. Stupid!
I'm thinking about switching from pc to a mbp. Mainly would use it for uni, having multiple browsers open, watching movies and music. Is the base 13" going to be cut it fine or is the $700 bump up to the base 15" worth it considering it would be my only computer?
I would buy an external monitor if I got the 13" to compensate for screen size
Thanks everyone!
I would buy an external monitor if I got the 13" to compensate for screen size
Thanks everyone!
The base 13" MacBook Pro is going to sell like hotcakes. I expect the plastic $999 version to do so as well.
I've been looking at the M11x and it's sporting an Intel CULV at $799. That might change this summer though with a Core i5 UM. In all honesty I'm in it to replace my Late 2007 Macbook and its depressing GMA X3100. It's easier to have one notebook than two.
I barely use any mobile processing power but I do sympathize for those seeking it. I believe they deserve a more powerful 13" model.
I've been looking at the M11x and it's sporting an Intel CULV at $799. That might change this summer though with a Core i5 UM. In all honesty I'm in it to replace my Late 2007 Macbook and its depressing GMA X3100. It's easier to have one notebook than two.
I barely use any mobile processing power but I do sympathize for those seeking it. I believe they deserve a more powerful 13" model.
Well, I acquiesced and bought the 13" base model, and have a 160GB Intel G2 I'm going to put into it tonight. I'm not the "average joe" tech guy, I'm well aware of what I bought, and that from a pure spec standpoint, I kind of got fleeced. But here's the situation...I absolutely had to have a new laptop, and I wasn't getting a PC. The it came down to size and screen resolution. I would have preferred a larger resolution, but I took the extra pita it is to scroll versus the pita to lug thru airports, and the 13" won. Haven't even unboxed it yet, but plan on throwing the SSD in tonight and seeing how it handles my software,
Hi there,
I am a digital performer and music producer who has to travel a fair bit to perform. 13" is the perfect size to fit laptop, small MIDI controller, Audio interface and headphones in carryon baggage and is not too bulky for small stage setups. I know I'm a niche market but I'm sure there are alot of other people who just can't see the reasoning not to include a high performance option in the 13" to please some of the travelling creative types.
I also fail to see how a screen size dictates whether somebodies use of that machine is professional or not. There is no logic to that whatsoever.
I am a digital performer and music producer who has to travel a fair bit to perform. 13" is the perfect size to fit laptop, small MIDI controller, Audio interface and headphones in carryon baggage and is not too bulky for small stage setups. I know I'm a niche market but I'm sure there are alot of other people who just can't see the reasoning not to include a high performance option in the 13" to please some of the travelling creative types.
I also fail to see how a screen size dictates whether somebodies use of that machine is professional or not. There is no logic to that whatsoever.
So things like having a smaller footprint + being lighter doesn't make it more portable?
Being able to pick it up and not crying like a little girl if a computer weighs a pound more than some slow 13" version
