The new MBP 13'' is a total fail.

[jclardy]

They mark the battery at 7 hours, but I'm not sure that is the case.

The old 13" was rated at 10 hours on the old less intensive test. I'll wait for the review to determine the real world battery life compared to the old version.

More important to me is the 1280x800 resolution. That is the deal breaker for me and makes me glad I bought my 15" on the tax holiday last year.

I much prefer the smaller size of the 13" but I need the extra resolution.

 

[LoganT]

Yes, but you fail to mention that TWO YEARS have passed, so you upgrade to have equal performance as in 2009, with the same hard drive, the same screen, same design, less battery... and all you have to show for is a faster processor and a thunderbolt (WTF) plug no-one will use in at least half a year?!? oh yeah, sorry, I forgot... now we get facetime... /sigh

Well, no one will ever use a tunderbolt port if it's never implemented into a computer.

The batter is not less, it's giving you a more realistic battery life in the real world. The old 13" MBP didn't get 10 hours, it got 10 hours with you barely using the thing.

What I'm hoping for is an external graphics card that works with ThunderBolt, that would be awesome.

 

[ThaDoggg]

I'm not very impressed about the smaller battery life. I would have been all over the 13" if it would have kept the same great battery life.

How do the integrated graphics handle being connected to an external display?

 

[peskaa]

Yes, but you fail to mention that TWO YEARS have passed, so you upgrade to have equal performance as in 2009, with the same hard drive, the same screen, same design, less battery... and all you have to show for is a faster processor and a thunderbolt (WTF) plug no-one will use in at least half a year?!?

oh yeah, sorry, I forgot... now we get facetime... /sigh

Apple had a choice. Go with IGP 3000 and get current Sandy Bridge CPUs, or stick with an NVIDIA solution and be relegated to C2D which aren't even in production any more.

Wait, that's not even a choice. Apple were forced by Intel to use the IGP simply because they can't use an NVIDIA IGP, because they can't get C2Ds any more. Discrete goes out the window because there's no physical room in the chassis due to the massive battery.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Apple had a choice. Go with IGP 3000 and get current Sandy Bridge CPUs, or stick with an NVIDIA solution and be relegated to C2D which aren't even in production any more.

Wait, that's not even a choice. Apple were forced by Intel to use the IGP simply because they can't use an NVIDIA IGP, because they can't get C2Ds any more. Discrete goes out the window because there's no physical room in the chassis due to the massive battery.

A lot of people were hoping Apple would drop the ODD and use the gained space for discrete graphics and a larger battery.

If they offered that build as a high-end 13" option, I think it would have silenced a lot of the complaints we're seeing. But I think the price of that hypothetical machine would be too close to the 15" Pro for it to make sense from a marketing standpoint (even though a lot of people probably would buy a portable powerhouse like that...).

 

[KohPhiPhi]

A lot of people were hoping Apple would drop the ODD and use the gained space for discrete graphics and a larger battery.

If they offered that build as a high-end 13" option, I think it would have silenced a lot of the complaints we're seeing. But I think the price of that hypothetical machine would be too close to the 15" Pro for it to make sense from a marketing standpoint (even though a lot of people probably would buy a portable powerhouse like that...).

I certainly would have. I would have gladly paid $300 extra for a mobile power laptop, which is what the 13" Macbook Pro should be. We already had the white macbook for mainstream users.

My conclusion? Specs-wise, what we've seen today is not an update of the 13" MBP but an upgrade of the white macbook.

 

[peskaa]

A lot of people were hoping Apple would drop the ODD and use the gained space for discrete graphics and a larger battery.

If they offered that build as a high-end 13" option, I think it would have silenced a lot of the complaints we're seeing. But I think the price of that hypothetical machine would be too close to the 15" Pro for it to make sense from a marketing standpoint (even though a lot of people probably would buy a portable powerhouse like that...).

Exactly - dropping the ODD would end up costing more, towards the 15" price, and would also complicate the SKUs that Apple have to sell (ie: manufacturing slot-less bodies). If you want an ODD-less machine, you get an Air. Apple have never been the masters of offering endless choice and customisation to the customer's whim.

Plus, if Apple can force people to spend a little more and buy a 15", then they make more money.

 

[panzer06]

A lot of people were hoping Apple would drop the ODD and use the gained space for discrete graphics and a larger battery.

If they offered that build as a high-end 13" option, I think it would have silenced a lot of the complaints we're seeing. But I think the price of that hypothetical machine would be too close to the 15" Pro for it to make sense from a marketing standpoint (even though a lot of people probably would buy a portable powerhouse like that...).

I'm not sure it would really cost more. More likely they didn't want to change manufacturing since this wasn't a real re-design, just an update to the existing design.

Doesn't matter, this is what we got; so for now it's MB Air or MBP 15 high end.

Cheers,

 

[aCondor]

Not even considering the 13" this revision. On to the 15"!

 

[articcine]

Why do we even discuss, whatever Apple does, someone will slaughter them, while others will praise them.

 

[Fubar1977]

They should have stuck with the core 2 (SP9600, 6MB L2, 2.53GHZ and max TDP of 25w), upgrade to a newer Nvidia graphics card put a SSD and update the screen res. The Core 2s in the 2010 had a max TDP of 25w. The core i3 and i5 have a max tdp of 35w (less battery life). The interesting thing is you can get an i7-2649M (4mb L2, 2C/4T, 2.3Ghz) with max tdp of 25w. So to me the best processor for the 13" that would keep the same battery life would be the i7-2649m or core2 SP9600.

Yeah, except the C2D has been discontinued

 

[vruchtflater]

I don't know why everone is so negative.

For me it's the fist time buying a MBP, and I really like the 13" size.
Of course, it may not be what everyone expected, but is it that much worse?
I don't think so...

Intel core i5 has proven itself to be much better than the old core2duo, so the latest version will even be better (but I think everybody agrees on this).

The Intel X3000 graphics are probably less than Nvidia (which has always been my no.1 graphics card manufactorer ever) but still, according to a number of tests he can keep up with the 320M!
By the way: The NVIDIA GeForce 320M is an integrated chipset graphics card for Core 2 Duo based laptops and successor of the GeForce 9400M. It does not feature dedicated graphics memory but uses the systems main memory instead. Same as the Intel X3000...

The HDD is still 5400 RPM, which is common in laptops.
But now you get 70GB more for the same price....

4GB of 1333 memory is better than 4GB of 1066 memory.

1280x800 should have been upped (MBA has it!), but still... it is not less than the previous version! 2010 MBP also had 1280x800, it could have been 1440x900 then, right?

So, my conclusion is that, when you are buying a new APPLE MBP 13", it was worth the wait. If you bought one sooner, that's fine too. We are talking APPLE guys...
If you already have the 2010 version it probably is not worth the upgrade, so save your upgrade money for next year and we all be happy...

 

[Sarngate]

I don't know why everone is so negative.

For me it's the fist time buying a MBP, and I really like the 13" size.
Of course, it may not be what everyone expected, but is it that much worse?
I don't think so...

Intel core i5 has proven itself to be much better than the old core2duo, so the latest version will even be better (but I think everybody agrees on this).

The Intel X3000 graphics are probably less than Nvidia (which has always been my no.1 graphics card manufactorer ever) but still, according to a number of tests he can keep up with the 320M!
By the way: The NVIDIA GeForce 320M is an integrated chipset graphics card for Core 2 Duo based laptops and successor of the GeForce 9400M. It does not feature dedicated graphics memory but uses the systems main memory instead. Same as the Intel X3000...

The HDD is still 5400 RPM, which is common in laptops.
But now you get 70GB more for the same price....

4GB of 1333 memory is better than 4GB of 1066 memory.

1280x800 should have been upped (MBA has it!), but still... it is not less than the previous version! 2010 MBP also had 1280x800, it could have been 1440x900 then, right?

So, my conclusion is that, when you are buying a new APPLE MBP 13", it was worth the wait. If you bought one sooner, that's fine too. We are talking APPLE guys...
If you already have the 2010 version it probably is not worth the upgrade, so save your upgrade money for next year and we all be happy...

1. The difference between 1333Mhz and 1066Mhz RAM is unnoticeable.
2. 1280*800 is ridiculous and unacceptable when the MBA has 1440*900.
3. The battery life isn't better even though there is a less powerful GPU. Work that one out.
4. 70GB of extra HDD, great. I can buy a 1TB HDD for about £100.

I'm so annoyed at Apple right now, 13'' buyers have been shafted completely.

 

[KPOM]

Yeah, except the C2D has been discontinued

True, and what little supply is left is being used up by the MacBook Air, which is selling like hotcakes (and even thinner than hotcakes, I might add).

Now that the 13" Pro got a Core i5 and Thunderbolt, I'm waiting with bated breath to see what the Rev E MacBook Air will offer. Will we get Thunderbolt, too, or will that be a "Pro" feature? Will we get the Core i5 or have to settle for the Core i3? I'm planning to skip the Rev E Air, but if we get those features, and keep the high-res screen to boot, I may be upgrading.


Interestingly, the MacBook didn't get upgraded or dropped yet. I think the Air will get whatever processor winds up in the updated base MacBook.

1. The difference between 1333Mhz and 1066Mhz RAM is unnoticeable.
2. 1280*800 is ridiculous and unacceptable when the MBA has 1440*900.
3. The battery life isn't better even though there is a less powerful GPU. Work that one out.
4. 70GB of extra HDD, great. I can buy a 1TB HDD for about £100.

I'm so annoyed at Apple right now, 13'' buyers have been shafted completely.

On 3), I'm guessing that's Apple's new testing plan, and not an actual reduction. Remember they made such a big deal about it when the new MacBook Air was released. I agree not having a 1440x900 option is puzzling. The RAM is more a function of the switch to Sandy Bridge. Those chips have no FSB, and 1333MHz RAM tends to be standard fare the same way 1066MHz was before.

I'd say 13" Pro buyers got a nice spec bump (the i7 was a nice surprise), but not the redesign that many were hoping for. Thunderbolt has potential, but that's in the future. It's easy to replace the HDD with an SSD in the Pro (and for less money than what Apple wants), so for many the new Pro will be a better deal than the Air. Perhaps that's why they didn't upgrade the screen (they still want to "upsell" to the slower Air).

 

[KohPhiPhi]

B]Intel core i5[/B] has proven itself to be much better than the old core2duo, so the latest version will even be better (but I think everybody agrees on this).

Agreed. Sand Bridge is great.

The Intel X3000 graphics are probably less than Nvidia (which has always been my no.1 graphics card manufactorer ever) but still, according to a number of tests he can keep up with the 320M!

I see... so one year later we're happy to simply "keep up" with the old technology?

The HDD is still 5400 RPM, which is common in laptops. But now you get 70GB more for the same price....

Again, I see... so we're now happy to still use the same hard drive with the same speed we used 4 years ago?

4GB of 1333 memory is better than 4GB of 1066 memory.

That is such a minimal upgrade that it's not even worth mentioning.

1280x800 should have been upped (MBA has it!), but still... it is not less than the previous version! 2010 MBP also had 1280x800, it could have been 1440x900 then, right?.

WTF?!?! so the justification is that "it is not less than the previous version!". I mean, are we serious here?!

So, my conclusion is that, when you are buying a new APPLE MBP 13", it was worth the wait.

Sorry, but as someone who's been waiting 4 months for this update, I feel that it's totally NOT WORTH the wait. I seriously believe that the 2010 model was stronger for 2010 standards than the 2011 is for 2011 standards.

 

[ashman70]

There seem to be a group of people who will NEVER be satisfied with the 13" no matter what Apple does, clearly. If you want higher screen res you will have to go to a 15" which should suit your needs. How many updates does Apple have to do to the 13" without changing the resolution before you realize its NOT going to happen, ever? If you have a 13" 2010 model, as I do, then I can't imagine why you would feel compelled to upgrade to this 'new' model? Apple is obviously excluding an SSD to keep prices down, seriously, who would want anything smaller then a 120GB SSD anyway, and although I do feel the optical drive is a bit useless nowadays they should at least offer the option to swap out the optical drive with a second drive, albeit an SSD. To me the drop in battery life is probably now more reflective of real world performance then the '10hrs' claimed on the 2010 model which virtually no one was ever able to achieve, so even though its a perceived 'drop' compared to last year, I think its now accurate. Thunderbolt is new and will have to prove itself in terms of usefulness and its draw on power and how it affects battery life, time will tell.

AM

 

[Yaboze]

Yeah, I was thinking of a 13" MBP to replace this 07 MB, but not if I am going to get Intel graphics AGAIN with a 1280x800 AGAIN.....I might just get the 15" now but I like the form factor of the 13".

I wonder if the Intel HD can even support Flash like the Nvidia integrated GPU's could.

 

[KPOM]

Sorry, but as someone who's been waiting 4 months for this update, I feel that it's totally NOT WORTH the wait. I seriously believe that the 2010 model was stronger for 2010 standards than the 2011 is for 2011 standards.

None of this is surprising, though. MacRumors reported in December that Apple was "impressed" by the Sandy Bridge IGP and planning to use it as the exclusive IGP in the Pro.

The processor is a significant upgrade, and the optional Core i7 was a nice surprise. That said, I agree a nicer screen (even as an option) should be offered. Perhaps in June or September Apple will release a 13" MacBook Air with the Core i5 and 1440x900 screen.

 

[al2o3cr]

FFS, from the way people whine here you'd think they were saving their VIRGINITY for the new 13" MBP.

 

[nateo200]

Glad I didn't wait! The only purpose I would have would be to say "Oh yeah its gottt an i7 alright /sleazy voice". Other wise Im fine with my 9-10 hours of battery life

 

[twkidM3]

huge bummer!

the rumors were pretty off... They said cheaper SSD upgrades?
Also said 20% less weight and more battery life?
where do these BS come from? Apple leaking these info to get press?
i'm disappointed!

 

[Mirai 11]

There seem to be a group of people who will NEVER be satisfied with the 13" no matter what Apple does, clearly. If you want higher screen res you will have to go to a 15" which should suit your needs. How many updates does Apple have to do to the 13" without changing the resolution before you realize its NOT going to happen, ever? If you have a 13" 2010 model, as I do, then I can't imagine why you would feel compelled to upgrade to this 'new' model? Apple is obviously excluding an SSD to keep prices down, seriously, who would want anything smaller then a 120GB SSD anyway, and although I do feel the optical drive is a bit useless nowadays they should at least offer the option to swap out the optical drive with a second drive, albeit an SSD. To me the drop in battery life is probably now more reflective of real world performance then the '10hrs' claimed on the 2010 model which virtually no one was ever able to achieve, so even though its a perceived 'drop' compared to last year, I think its now accurate. Thunderbolt is new and will have to prove itself in terms of usefulness and its draw on power and how it affects battery life, time will tell.

AM

The best answer in this thread so far.
If you want power, the 15, 17 inch is your answer.
Sandy Bridge has finally arrived, so be realistic about it.
I'm buying the base 15 inch, and i know that regardless of what anyone says of the graphics, it will totally beat what i have now, i can't wait.

 

[elhungarian]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

I was a bit underwhelmed as well. It's ok though. Further solidified my order for refurb 15" i5.

 

[socrates key]

Guess I won't be selling my 13 Air.

 

[tigress666]

Is the battery time due to them using the new test they used on the new Air?

Don't be too hasty until you see results from somewhere like Anandtech:

"Apple is using a new, more rigorous battery test that measures the results you can expect in the real world — like surfing your favourite sites in a coffee shop or catching up on the latest web videos. How does this MacBook Pro battery stack up against the previous generation using this new test? It delivers the same amazing performance."

Honestly, my 2010 gets about 7.5 hours (maybe more) under my use. Which is better than what they are claiming for the new one. So, still not impressed (ok, I'd like to know what apps they are running on the new test. Still Safari and word? Or do they use Firefox which will suck a ton more battery out. If Firefox then maybe it is an upgrade . I will admit I run safari on battery since it sux less battery. But, I also tend to have a ton of tabs running when running Firefox (like it loads them up everytime cause I have it save tabs)).

They should have stuck with the core 2 (SP9600, 6MB L2, 2.53GHZ and max TDP of 25w), upgrade to a newer Nvidia graphics card put a SSD and update the screen res. The Core 2s in the 2010 had a max TDP of 25w. The core i3 and i5 have a max tdp of 35w (less battery life). The interesting thing is you can get an i7-2649M (4mb L2, 2C/4T, 2.3Ghz) with max tdp of 25w. So to me the best processor for the 13" that would keep the same battery life would be the i7-2649m or core2 SP9600.

The core 2s are not an option really. Discontinued. Plus Apple is already still putting them in the Airs so they probably are trying not to stress the limited supply they'll have to put in the Airs. I do like that apparently you can pick an i7 for the 13". Nice to see them make the higher end model actually seem that much different (last year it was the same processor with an increased speed of .2 Ghz. Not worth the extra money).

In the end, I'll say that yesterday I was on the edge on whether I'd pick the 2011 or 2010 if I had the choice (I don't, I already made the choice, and I can't afford to upgrade a year later just to upgrade). I was willing to wait to see how good/bad the new graphics chip was. But that battery life easily swayed me onto the I'm glad I got the 2010 model (unless some how they find htat the new graphics chip is leaps and bounds beyond the one in the 2010 model, that might be worth loss of battery).

Hopefully in a few years when I'm ready to upgrade again they'll have improved battery life. I'd love to see 10 hours under their new tests *grin*.