I'm sorry out of all this, I just realized my phone is a 2.3ghz quad core.... It made me really think.
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.
uh.. what happened to Apple? [underwhelmed by MBP]
- Thread starter Pandamic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which Dell laptop do you have? One of the bargain bin ones?
----------
Your phone uses a 2.3 GHz quad core CPU? If it does , it's probably one of those RISC ones so you can't do any serious work on it.
----------
Why would Apple put their focus on pro users again? The only professional product Apple has left is the new Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is definitely something I would want to buy if I had an extra $4k.
----------
If someone is making $200k+ then of course a $2000 laptop isn't much money for them. The question is , how many people do you know that make $200k+ and uses only Macs? I know engineers who make over $200k and they don't use Mac laptops as their main laptops since the hardware isn't good enough for their work.
I guess so. I expected the MacBook Pro laptops to use a 10 bit IPS panel + a workstation GPU but hipsters don't care about that stuff. Hipsters only understand buzz words so at least Apple knows how to market their products.
Professionals speak a different language than hipsters. They speak of things like CUDA programming , ISV certifications , color gamut , etc.
Last edited:
The GT750M does support CUDA in OS X. I've installed the drivers provided from Nvidia to enable CUDA. There's even a toolkit from them to build CUDA-enabled apps.
The color gamut of the retina screen is way better than most Windows systems.
...which is part of the reason why the 13" model shouldn't be considered a pro model in the first place...
HP managed to fit a workstation GPU in a 14" laptop that uses a 16:9 screen though.
----------
You mean plastic IdeaPads , right?
We all know IdeaPads are junk.
The ThinkPads are made of better materials and have things like a magnesium roll cage.
I couldn't agree more with you. I am not a fan of the retina macbook pros, at all. I like the option of having to upgrade my MBP at a later date. I am very lucky to own a 2012 15" MBP. They seem more valuable now than ever.
I will admit that I did try the retina MBP out a few times and each time was a disappointment. I actually got a good screen but there was creaking throughout the entire unibody. Second MBP had bad image retention issues which got worse from day 1 to day 13.
I called it quits after that. When paying this "premium" on Apple products, we SHOULD NOT have to play the screen lottery. And that goes for all their products. Its absolutely ridiculous. How can a corporation and large and successful as Apple not implement better quality control standards?
Maybe the 2015, or 2016 retina MBP will be up to the same level the cMBP is.
Agreed. Apple has so much money that they can demand the best quality panels but they choose not to in order to cut costs.
The Samsung PLS panels are great but the LG AH-IPS panels aren't on the same level IIRC.
Apple could just use PLS panels but I guess it would cost them more.
Everyone is so defensive about their computers. I bought a new rmbp and I like it. I did consider other options, partially because I'm not that happy with some of the choices Apple has made--some of which the OP is right about, despite his hysteria.
It's true that you could get an upgradeable Macbook for a reasonably low price a few years ago, and the new Macbooks and Airs are comparatively expensive. It's also true that if you choose to get the base-model non-upgradeable Air (roughly equivalent price), you are buying something that might not have the same staying power as if you choose better and more expensive specs on either an air or rmpb.
And yeah, the new machines have the new technology, but the old macbooks had the new technology of their time, so it's a valid point. I actually considered getting a new cmbp--I miss the optical drive, and my wife's cmpb will be useful for a long time--at some point we'll add an ssd and more RAM.
On the other hand, there is no way that I'm running Windows 8, and it's true that the choices Apple has made (like them or not) means a bunch of expensive components--so you are on the bleeding edge of some technologies (i.e., the screen, ssd, etc) and not-so-bleeding edge on graphics processors. You can definitely see why some people wouldn't want them or consider them to be too expensive.
If you bought it, it was probably for the same reason I did: You wanted to spend the next few years working on a lightweight computer with the nice new screen instead of the old visibly-pixellated screen, because you stare at your fricking computer all day and lug it around. It's worth the extra $$$ to you, even if you are annoyed that you have to remember where you put your external optical drive and you occasionally have this nagging feeling that you might have figured out a way to manage with a $300 Asus laptop running Ubuntu (not really, but maybe...)
http://www.amazon.com/1015E-DS03-10...id=1391221977&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=asuslinux
It's true that you could get an upgradeable Macbook for a reasonably low price a few years ago, and the new Macbooks and Airs are comparatively expensive. It's also true that if you choose to get the base-model non-upgradeable Air (roughly equivalent price), you are buying something that might not have the same staying power as if you choose better and more expensive specs on either an air or rmpb.
And yeah, the new machines have the new technology, but the old macbooks had the new technology of their time, so it's a valid point. I actually considered getting a new cmbp--I miss the optical drive, and my wife's cmpb will be useful for a long time--at some point we'll add an ssd and more RAM.
On the other hand, there is no way that I'm running Windows 8, and it's true that the choices Apple has made (like them or not) means a bunch of expensive components--so you are on the bleeding edge of some technologies (i.e., the screen, ssd, etc) and not-so-bleeding edge on graphics processors. You can definitely see why some people wouldn't want them or consider them to be too expensive.
If you bought it, it was probably for the same reason I did: You wanted to spend the next few years working on a lightweight computer with the nice new screen instead of the old visibly-pixellated screen, because you stare at your fricking computer all day and lug it around. It's worth the extra $$$ to you, even if you are annoyed that you have to remember where you put your external optical drive and you occasionally have this nagging feeling that you might have figured out a way to manage with a $300 Asus laptop running Ubuntu (not really, but maybe...)
http://www.amazon.com/1015E-DS03-10...id=1391221977&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=asuslinux
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
If you bought it, it was probably for the same reason I did: You wanted to spend the next few years working on a lightweight computer with the nice new screen instead of the old visibly-pixellated screen, because you stare at your fricking computer all day and lug it around. It's worth the extra $$$ to you, even if you are annoyed that you have to remember where you put your external optical drive and you occasionally have this nagging feeling that you might have figured out a way to manage with a $300 Asus laptop running Ubuntu (not really, but maybe...)
Quite a few Windows based laptops use "Retina" type displays now.
Yes, but I would pay any amount of money to not run Windows 8, be annoyed constantly, and have my computer run by a shadowy Eastern European malware network of unknown intent. I did think about some Linux distro. Anyway, Windows laptops with hi-res displays are similarly expensive.
Should blame AMD and NVIDIA for the lack of a dedicated GPU in the low end model. Their midrange notebook graphics chips are so close to Intels IGPU's that Apple didn't see the point of including a dedicated chip on the lower specced 15".
I can assure you if NVIDIA or AMD had a dedicated midrange chip which was 30-50% faster than Intel's IGPU and fit their thermal envelope they would have included it.
It's just a situation where there was a lack of innovation at the time. Don't forget that the GT 650m and GT 750m are essentially the same processor, they use the same architecture (Kepler). Apple may put a dedicated GPU back on the low specced machine when the Maxwell NVIDIA architecture comes out.
Also this isn't the first time that Apple has delivered a 15" MacBook Pro without a dedicated GPU. I think they offered it in 2008 as-well where you could get an integrated 9400m without the 9600GT dedicated GPU or you could get the higher model which had both.
I can assure you if NVIDIA or AMD had a dedicated midrange chip which was 30-50% faster than Intel's IGPU and fit their thermal envelope they would have included it.
It's just a situation where there was a lack of innovation at the time. Don't forget that the GT 650m and GT 750m are essentially the same processor, they use the same architecture (Kepler). Apple may put a dedicated GPU back on the low specced machine when the Maxwell NVIDIA architecture comes out.
Also this isn't the first time that Apple has delivered a 15" MacBook Pro without a dedicated GPU. I think they offered it in 2008 as-well where you could get an integrated 9400m without the 9600GT dedicated GPU or you could get the higher model which had both.
So, if you dislike the product so much, why are you still here? Don't you have anything better to do than bashing something you hate?
OP, I completely agree with you. At work, we have a bunch of 17" MBP's, and they're getting to the point where they need to be replaced. But what do we replace them with? I have no idea.
The retina screen is worse for me, because it's physically smaller. I don't give a darn about battery life because I'm never unplugged for more than 4 hours, but to get anything remotely useful for me is $3200. And that's mostly because they don't think that anyone needs a lot of HDD. Do you know how many PC goodies I can snag with a $3200 purchase order!?
And if I look at the apps I use most of my PC, the only app I'm unsure about having a decent Hi-DPI setting is... iTunes (and Photoshop, which I know for sure doesn't support hi-DPI, but it's adobe and it's a piece of bloated junk)
The retina screen is worse for me, because it's physically smaller. I don't give a darn about battery life because I'm never unplugged for more than 4 hours, but to get anything remotely useful for me is $3200. And that's mostly because they don't think that anyone needs a lot of HDD. Do you know how many PC goodies I can snag with a $3200 purchase order!?
My understanding is that's only true in some instances, and for gaming the 750 is still a much better card
I realize we're talking about the 15" here, but other companies can figure out how to shoehorn an AMD GPU into a 13" laptop, just not Apple. Apple just chooses not to give a darn about the GPU, and the Iris Pro is just another example of that.
Only for native apps that don't support Hi-DPI, which admittedly is a lot of them, but it's not a Windows issue.
And if I look at the apps I use most of my PC, the only app I'm unsure about having a decent Hi-DPI setting is... iTunes (and Photoshop, which I know for sure doesn't support hi-DPI, but it's adobe and it's a piece of bloated junk
)So basically, everyone that disagrees with your so called 'professional opinion' is a hipster? What arrogance
Your particular demands represent only a small niche of users. Apple do not cater to those users. Ok, correction - they DO cater to those users by offering the Mac Pro. They correctly recognise that someone doing heavy-duty work that requires a workstation GPU and other goodies will probably not choose a laptop as their tool in the first place.
As a professional researcher, educator and software engineer, I need a light, portable, fast machine with instant UI response. The retina MacBook Pro is the first Apple machine (and in fact, the first laptop I have every used) which satisfies virtually every of my needs. And - if I need to run a statistical simulation (which can take days or weeks) - I have the university supercomputer for that.
I have always wrote here: you need to recognise what your demands are and get a tool which is most suitable to the job. If you are a 'specialised' specialist who's professional workflow is restricted to one-two heavy-duty application, then a Mac is a wrong tool for you in the first place. Get a Windows workstation - it will be faster and cheaper. IMO - Mac offers a better user experience which can result in a productivity boost but if all you do is edit large files in PS or build CAD models in SolidWorks - then you simply don't need that user experience. Same with CUDA - if you absolutely need it, then get a windows/linux box with a bunch of Nvidia cards that would do exactly what you need them to do. Apple is not interested to building a laptop for you. Their niche is a highly portable jack-of-all-trades machine, not a specialised workstation.
----------
Could you give some examples? I am just curious. I never saw anyone putting a fast GPU in a 13" laptop. I've seen some older remodels with low-end dGPUs but that pretty much ended with the new era of Intel/AMD integrated graphics.
When the sandy bridge chips came out, there was a bunch of Dell 13" and 14" laptops with the 6670 in it. I can't seem to find any now (sans Alienware), so perhaps you're right, but in the past what I said was definitely true.
http://www.originpc.com/gaming/laptops/eon13-s/specifications.aspx?tab=specs&active=true&systemid=33
Of course it isn't as thin as the MacBook Air since the MacBook Air was designed to appeal to mainstream consumers and not gamers or anyone else who expects great performance.
Apple values company profits first, style over function second, and iPhone's, Pads, Pods & gadgets over everything. That's where the money is.
Years ago when they changed their name from Apple Computer, to Apple Inc. it was a subtle indication their new focus was to join the large scale consumer electronics companies and pump out massive quantities of consumer focused non-technical products.
It was a brilliant one sided strategy that brought in the hoards of cash they have today. It also filled their insatiable need for attention and bragging rights. A win/win for Apple and it's followers who love to brag about Apples success as though it was their own.
Although very overpriced and lacking highly useful features that my other laptops have had for years, (fingerprint readers, 3G/LTE connectivity to name just two) I do enjoy my MBP for what is.
Yep. It is though. For most people - and if you need more than that, then get something else.