The new MBP 13'' is a total fail.

[jegbook]

Same. I was going to be a day-one buyer. All I needed was a i3 and a 1400x900 resolution on the 13" MBP. I'm not a fanboy (even though I have a 27" iMac and an iPhone 4), so I will have to take my customership somewhere else until Apple brings the 13" MBP out of this no-mans-land it is right now.

Perhaps the new 13" MBP was meant to be an upgrade over the white macbook instead of the 2010 13· MBP?

There aren't that many 13" screen laptops out there (Dell has the E4310, their only one, I think, and I don't know that Lenovo has any. I imagine Asus, Acer, HP, Toshiba may have some).

If not a 13" MBP or MBA, what Wintel laptop will folks get instead? What's a reasonable equivalent and pricing?

I've been looking for a good Wintel replacement for my MBP and am curious what others are buying.

Thanks.

 

[henrikrox]

I love apple products. But apple messed up good here.

Slow gpu
No display upgrade

How can this be pro when a utraportabel (air) has better display.

I love people saying the 3000hd is as good as the 320m. Just wait there will be plenty threads of people complaining about the new MacBook pro 13.

Its crap

 

[Adidas Addict]

How can this be pro when a utraportabel (air) has better display.

It might be slightly higher res, but the MBA screen is nowhere near the quality of the 13" MBP screen. (Yes I have owned both)

 

[Demosthenes X]

There aren't that many 13" screen laptops out there (Dell has the E4310, their only one, I think, and I don't know that Lenovo has any. I imagine Asus, Acer, HP, Toshiba may have some).

If not a 13" MBP or MBA, what Wintel laptop will folks get instead? What's a reasonable equivalent and pricing?

I've been looking for a good Wintel replacement for my MBP and am curious what others are buying.

Thanks.

You can get a Sony VAIO with a 1366 x 768 screen, 2.66/2.93 GHz i5, 8GB RAM, 500GB 7200 rpm HDD, and discrete NVIDIA graphics card w/ 512 MB VRAM for $5 more than the baseline MBP... seems like a good alternative for those looking...

 

[jegbook]

Maybe they want more power but they don't want a *bigger* computer. Why does everyone expect that you aren't compromising something by going to the 15"? Even if you don't care about price, some of us prefer the smaller size for the size itself. My computer is attached to a 21" screen when at home so I don't care about the bigger screen and that's the only advantage I see of increasing a laptop's size (allows for a bigger screen).

Except that companies seem to think that anyone who wants a smaller laptop also doesn't care about performance cause obviously we only want small cause of price and not cause of the size itself. That's how American car companies lost out to foreign car companies. Assuming those people who wanted compact cars only wanted them cause that is what they could afford. And not realizing there is a market for people who actually like the smaller cars but still want the luxury features.

(sorry, you hit a pet peeve. People who want the smaller laptop may not necessarily want it cause it's cheaper but actually prefer that size. And in general the American attitude that people only want smaller cause they don't want to pay for bigger. Some of us like smaller cars, smaller motorcycles, smaller computers).

If you look around at Sony, Dell, and Lenovo, you can get small and powerful, but I think it usually costs northwards of $2k.

It can be frustrating that Apple offers so few options, but agree or not with their products, their bottom line and ~$40 billion in the bank doesn't mesh with all the complaints here of the new models (or past ones).

Everyone makes compromises. Apple compromises by offering fewer models to ensure their profits are high.

Sigh.

 

[kasakka]

It might be slightly higher res, but the MBA screen is nowhere near the quality of the 13" MBP screen. (Yes I have owned both)

Interesting. What's the difference? Viewing angles, color accuracy?

I too was looking forward to higher res display on the 13". 1280x800 is ok, but just that tiny bit cramped.

 

[panzer06]

You can get a Sony VAIO with a 1366 x 768 screen, 2.66/2.93 GHz i5, 8GB RAM, 500GB 7200 rpm HDD, and discrete NVIDIA graphics card w/ 512 MB VRAM for $5 more than the baseline MBP... seems like a good alternative for those looking...

Which model? Z, F, CE?

 

[KPOM]

How can you POSSIBLY state that that's a worthy upgrade for a 2011 premium machine ($1000+)?!?!?!?!?! What is the point of a Sand Bridge processor (which 95% of the users wont use at full potential) if paired with a low-end GPU, no SDD and a 2006 screen-resolution (1200x800 on a 13" screen)?!?!?

I mean, this Macbook Pro is WAY WORSE for 2011 than the previous version was for 2010! Total disappointment!

The people who aren't likely to use a Sandy Bridge processor at full potential also aren't likely to notice the GPU. Also, you CAN get an SSD on the Pro, direct from Apple. But not everyone wants to pay the premium so they made a HDD standard.

Here's my best guess at Apple's reasoning. Once the GPU reaches a certain level of adequacy, other components like the CPU are more important. In the case of the Arrandale Core i3/i5, the GPU was especially bad, and didn't meet the basic level of adequacy that OS X needs. Therefore, Apple stuck with the Core 2 Duo/NVIDIA 320m combo last year. This year, the Sandy Bridge graphics, while slower than the NVIDIA 320m, are adequate, and the processor is significantly faster. Thus, on the whole, apart from gamers, average users will notice benefits from the faster CPU without really noticing the slower GPU.

The processor/GPU combo in last year's 13" Pro was like choosing a car with a 150hp engine and V rated tires because the car with the 200 hp engine came with only S rated tires and couldn't be paired with better tires because of a contract dispute. This year, the contract dispute is still there, but at least the second car now comes with H rated tires (and now has a 220 hp engine). Sure the H-rated tires aren't as good as the V rated tires were on last year's car, but they are good enough, and people will notice the better engine. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it's close.

 

[Adidas Addict]

Interesting. What's the difference? Viewing angles, color accuracy?

I too was looking forward to higher res display on the 13". 1280x800 is ok, but just that tiny bit cramped.

Both colours and veiwing angles were poor (and I had the supposedly best of the new MBA screen part numbers). The contrast was awful, everything looked white/washed out at anything other than the exact correct viewing position. No matter how you calibrated it the colours were not saturated enough, nowhere near the MBP 13 screen. Not sure, but I would say the MBA screen is of a much lower price.

 

[aberrero]

Interesting. What's the difference? Viewing angles, color accuracy?

I too was looking forward to higher res display on the 13". 1280x800 is ok, but just that tiny bit cramped.

Color accuracy is a big difference, but it isn't something you notice.

What you notice is the lack of color saturation on the MBA. It just looks kind of washed out.

The contrast on the Air is pretty great though, and it has very dark blacks. It's not a bad display, but it could be better.

 

[jonnyr78]

It might be slightly higher res, but the MBA screen is nowhere near the quality of the 13" MBP screen. (Yes I have owned both)

100% agree, I take lots of photos and the colour on the new MBP pro screen is muhc better - my impressions of both (having just gone from top 13" Air to base 13" MBP) are here : https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11983946#post11983946

So, could it possibly be that the lack of 1440x900 is because there were no panels with adequate quality? The Vaio z has awesome screens...but are they exclusive to Sony?

 

[ccsicecoke]

If they are they likely wouldn't know what the word means.

Cheers,

I would say the exact opposite

 

[jegbook]

You can get a Sony VAIO with a 1366 x 768 screen, 2.66/2.93 GHz i5, 8GB RAM, 500GB 7200 rpm HDD, and discrete NVIDIA graphics card w/ 512 MB VRAM for $5 more than the baseline MBP... seems like a good alternative for those looking...

Guts-wise that is certainly a good alternative. It's about the same weight but bigger in every dimension than the 13" MBP.

Something to think about. Thanks!

 

[Adidas Addict]

The Vaio z has awesome screens...but are they exclusive to Sony?

They are 16:9 though, and whatever happens we don't want that

 

[molala]

i5/i7 is great and yay for that! But I'm also in the group wishing for a high-res anti-glare or even just glassless screen! They obviously have that screen available so that is why we were expecting it as a BTO option.

My ideal laptop would have been the 13" MBP body with the 13" MBA screen.

I think I'll just wait for the next rev. If I needed a new laptop tomorrow, I would be deciding between the MBA or a refurb 2010 15" MBP.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Which model? Z, F, CE?

This one. From my understanding, Sony makes decent notebooks. Not up to Apple's standards, maybe, but good nonetheless.

 

[jonnyr78]

They are 16:9 though, and whatever happens we don't want that

Of course! And, interestingly, Sony doesn't offer a 13" 16:10 laptop with a display higher than 1280x800, that I am aware of. Lenovo do I think. Not sure Apple had that much choice in the end.

Maybe it should use some of its gazillions in the bank to manufacture its own screens?

 

[thegreatdivorce]

I completely agree. Everything about this refresh was great, with the exception of the display. Coming from an X3100, I would have been happy with the HD 3000 GPU.

I can understand the arguments of those who can "live with" the 1280x800 resolution, but when a 13" professional grade laptop has fewer pixels than an 11" consumer/convenience machine, it's pretty disappointing. Even a BTO 1440x900 option would have redeemed the refresh, but I guess I'll be waiting for the next bump.

What professional tasks does one perform on a 13 inch screen? It's too small for "real" work anyways. Unless you consider real work surfing Mac Rumors and typing a novel in Word.

 

[Jiten]

Wow. A lot of you make it sounds like Apple shot your dog and burned your house down. You guys put too much faith in speculative rumors.

 

[mattcube64]

What professional tasks does one perform on a 13 inch screen? It's too small for "real" work anyways. Unless you consider real work surfing Mac Rumors and typing a novel in Word.

I completely, completely agree the resolution of the 13" MBP sucks. That said, at 1440x900 on a 13", you can definitely get some work done. Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign for some creative work is just fine while away from your desktop. Not ideal; but it's darn near impossible at 1280x800. Just not enough real estate.

 

[iTouch1987]

battery life = real battery life of 10 hours advertised last year.

10 hours = dimmest setting, no wireless browsing, etc.

durrrrrrrr.

 

[mitchleeh]

I have a 15" 2.4 i5, and was really hope to sell it for the high end 13" MBP. I understand that my current machine is awesome, but I just don't like the physical size. I carry it around often & around the city, and would enjoy more portability. I sometimes plug my 15" into a external monitor, sometimes an iMac, but mostly work on it as is.

I think my feeling of disappointment comes from knowing that the MBA has a higher res screen, and the 13" MBP doesn't. That was the biggest news for me since last October when they released the MBAs... I thought for sure the 13" MBPS are next. I guess MBA screens aren't as nice as MBP screens? It's too bad, but not the end of the world.

What I can suggest for those who share this disappointment is to submit feedback to Apple here:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

I've already made a request to at least add the pay-to-upgrade option for a higher res screen. I don't know if it will work, but it's worth a shot.

Right now, I've decided to wait for the next version of the MBA or 13" MBP. It should be the perfect mix of screen res/performance.

 

[Demosthenes X]

What professional tasks does one perform on a 13 inch screen? It's too small for "real" work anyways. Unless you consider real work surfing Mac Rumors and typing a novel in Word.

Plenty of DJs and audio mixers like the 13" form factor for its portability...

There are plenty of professionals for whom the 13" is an ideal machine. Pretending otherwise is just ignorant.

 

[Richard1028]

What professional tasks does one perform on a 13 inch screen? It's too small for "real" work anyways. Unless you consider real work surfing Mac Rumors and typing a novel in Word.

What... professionals don't have the right or need to travel light?

 

[smetvid]

Don't be so quick to judge the 13" before we really know what it can do.

1. The cpu is much better. In fact I think the base cpu could even beat my 3.06Ghz iMac.
2. the Nvidia 320 was also an integrated gpu. This time it just happens to be made by Intel. This is also nowhere near the same crappy integrated gpu's from Intel in the past. From what I have read it should at least be equal to the Nvidia 320 give or take a few points depending on the application. 384 of shared ram is much higher then 256. I have also read that the base 15" ATI gpu may not be any faster then the Intel 3000 depending again on the application.
3. Battery numbers are not a big deal. Very few people have ever reached more then 6 or 7 hours on the previous 13". Many people get around 4 hours of real world usage. Basically Apple had an over inflated battery estimate before which we could consider a marketing gimmick. Now their results should be a bit more accurate. Who knows perhaps in real world usage the new 13" may actually run longer.

I think this new 13" is a great system. Of course the 15" is better but it is also $500.00 more for the base 15" and the gpu may not be all that much faster.