When will we get a 13" High Res MBP?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by phil123, May 25, 2010.

  1. phil123 macrumors member


    Aug 17, 2009
    Finally got the 15's this time. Any thoughts on when (if?) we will see a better resolution for the 13? Late fall (he said hoping against hope...)?
  2. Dooger macrumors 6502

    May 4, 2009
    Don't hold your breath, they're still running C2D. If they're not willing to improve even the processor then what chance a hi res?
  3. Sarngate macrumors regular

    May 15, 2010
    Uh, improve the processor how exactly ? The 2.66 Ghz C2D is as fast as any i3, and they obviously aren't going to put an i5 in there cheapest model.

    God people, stop thinking that names = power.
  4. Dooger macrumors 6502

    May 4, 2009
    God n00b get your facts straight. Their cheapest model is a macbook. This is a Pro machine and as such I don't think it is unreasonable to expect something more than a 3 year old processor that's going out of production. Besides, in the previous line I'm pretty sure the 13 and the 15 Pro shared a similar processor (P8700)
  5. Sarngate macrumors regular

    May 15, 2010
    n00b ? Really ? Are you 5 years old ?

    I clearly meant the cheapest Macbook Pro model, jeez, if you want to be pedantic then fine.

    Like i said, there is NO logical reason to have an updated processor in the 13'' Macbook Pro. Just because it is 3 years old doesn't mean that it is worthy of an upgrade.

    So rather than skirting around the facts (like the fact that there is no good successor to the C2D which will keep battery life the same and cost the same) try actually posting something relevant next time.

    The C2D will do everything 99% of 13'' MB and MBP users will ever need to do. The i3 uses more power and offers very little if any performance benefit, and if they did use i3 then they would have to mess around with switchable graphics, further draining the battery life.

    If you tried to put an i5 in a 13'' MBP, the cost would rise to the point where you might as well go for a 15'' model.

    So sick and tired of people who just go by names and model numbers rather than actual performance, or heaven forbid, common sense ! :rolleyes:
  6. Beric macrumors 68020


    Jan 22, 2008
    Bay Area
    I doubt it'll happen for a while. Then next resolution upgrade is gonna be a 16:9 panel, unless Apple can make suppliers continue to produce 16:10 panels.
  7. wordoflife macrumors 604


    Jul 6, 2009
    I think it's fine.
    I'm using a 15'' laptop right now with a 1280x800 res, the same as the 13'' Macbook family.
  8. calsci macrumors 6502


    Nov 27, 2008
    Never, they want you to have to spend more money to get it.
  9. Techhie macrumors 65816


    Dec 7, 2008
    The hub of stupidity
    Ok, how about the fact that Intel is soon due to halt production of C2D chips? I'm surprised Apple put themselves in a position to be forced into an update when that happens in the relative future.

    As for the screen, it will be a few more years. Apple still considers the base 13" MBP as an "entry" machine despite its shiny moniker. Besides, from how long it took the high-res option to trickle down from the 17", it's obvious that it isn't a priority.
  10. AndrewCjDuong macrumors member

    Feb 7, 2010
    13 inch is small enough (atleast for me). making the fonts any smaller and i'll need a telescope.
  11. chuckflip53 macrumors regular

    May 18, 2010
  12. Dooger macrumors 6502

    May 4, 2009
    Yeah, cos all people want is screen real estate and not a portable powerhouse. You gotta think outside the box lil fanboi, maybe some would have appreciated the extra power an i5 would have brought them whilst maintaining lower end C2D 13s for guys like yourself to play Farmville on all day.
    And what are they gonna do when production ceases on C2D? Huh?
  13. jayhawk11 macrumors 6502a


    Oct 19, 2007
    Depends on how far away he sits. :cool:
  14. Sarngate macrumors regular

    May 15, 2010
    I don't mean to be rude, but you're an idiot.

    I don't even own a Macbook of any description, im just speaking in facts. I'm sure some people would have appreciated an i5 in a 13'' form factor, but it's not going to happen for many reasons, battery life and the logic board configuration being one of them.

    The whole point of the i5 in the new MBP's is to give you increased performance when using things like iMovie, and when playing games etc. For multi-tasking, you will see very little benefit in real-world situations.

    Anybody who thinks they need an i5 and is using a 13'' laptop with a 1280*800 is stupid, imo, especially when it's only paired with a 320m graphics chip.

    The C2D's are the best option for the 13'' model, just accept you were wrong and move on, please.

    P.S You really think that Apple don't realise Intel are stopping factory production of C2D chips ? They will have thousands if not millions of the things stockpiled already, so that point is moot.
  15. TxMacAddict macrumors 6502

    Feb 4, 2008
    +1 for the HR 13" I would definitely be interested in buying one if they ever release it.
  16. iSpoody 1243 macrumors 6502

    Jun 29, 2008
    hi res 13"?
    hell, i want a 1920,1200 15"!
    with that real estate i could throw my 24" in the bin.
  17. diablo2112 macrumors 6502

    Apr 16, 2010
    It's apparent a number of folks in this thread are unaware of the key issues as to why Apple kept the C2D in the latest 13" MBP. There's tons of discussion about this, but the bottom line is that with the i3, Apple would have been required to take the integrated Intel graphics which they felt were inferior for the MBP, or alternately would have required a discrete graphics chip which is not well-supported in the 13" logic board and form factor. Barring a major rework of the logic board (certainly possible in the future), Apple had to make a choice between the i3 and i5 with integrated, crappy graphics or retaining the C2D which allowed the use of the latest nVidia chipset. Given that the i3 offers almost no advantage over the C2D, Apple made the right choice within this set of constraints. This is also why an i5 13" MBP makes no sense, given the crappy integrated GPU.

    The real core of this issue is the feud between nVidia and Intel, and the inability to license an integrated nVidia chip in the latest processors.
  18. dsprimal macrumors 6502a


    Mar 27, 2010
  19. mrsir2009 macrumors 604


    Sep 17, 2009
    Melbourne, Australia
    I reckon the MBP res is fine how it is. If it was any bigger it would be too hard to see stuff:eek:
  20. kny3twalker macrumors 65816


    Oct 25, 2009
    I really do not think battery life has anything to do with it. An i3 or i5 using the intel integrated graphics should use no more power than a core2duo and nvidia integrated graphics. Discrete graphic may reduce battery if switchable graphics are implemented but not always, and apple really did not consider this as an option currently, maybe when the SuperDrive is removed from the platform.

    Then I do not see how processor performance and display resolution are related. The MacBook pro 13" will in the near future have a processor faster than an i5 despite the fact that the resolution could remain unchanged.
    I just do not see your logic. Look at windows laptops, they do not only use core2duos on laptops with low resolution displays.

    Your statements are really just opinions.
  21. kny3twalker macrumors 65816


    Oct 25, 2009
    As far as the topic, I would prefer a matte display to high resolution.
  22. Dooger macrumors 6502

    May 4, 2009
    Wow, way to lack class! But you're a n00b here so I'll forgive your inability to engage in intelligent debate without throwing your toys out of the pram.

    At no point in the above thread did I say say I wanted hi-res, you're just throwing around assumptions that are wrong. In fact I want power and portability and perhaps some future proving. I have a 2.53 C2D 15 on which I run software for viewing MRIs and cone beam CT scanning images. I download 5-10 medical journal articles daily and have to keep them open for referencing whatever paper I'm writing or reviewing. For this reason I use Spaces and Expose continually. The final part of the jigsaw is that I travel between two different clinics and a Teaching Hospital and would prefer something more portable than my 15. For all these reasons combined I've been waiting for a more powerful 13 that hasn't come along.

    In my opinion, C2D is not the best option for me, indeed it would represent a step backwards. It would have been nice for Apple to offer a choice, perhaps with a redesigned architecture with the understanding that the smaller battery would give you (only!) 8 hrs or so. For me this is the crux of the matter, and unfortunately the reason that I can't buy a 13 yet.
  23. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Oct 15, 2008
    It's quite apparent that you have no idea why Apple was forced into staying with the C2D so perhaps you should keep the ego and name calling to a minimum.

    Back up and read Diablo2112'a post.

    Glancing at your posts, I hope to God you aren't involved in any medical hospital that I ever require.
  24. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Jan 29, 2010
    You really think Apple prices their computers by costs :rolleyes:

    The 2.4 ghz costs the same as the 2.66 ghz cpu from Intel, yet Apple charges $300 more. :rolleyes:

    The i5 should and could have easily been fitted in the 13 inch without increasing the price ;)

    Maybe at the next refresh the MBP gets more screen real estate with a matte option.
  25. Sanderr macrumors regular

    Jun 14, 2007
    What in earth does the cpu have to do with the screen resolution? I could REALLY use the power of a faster cpu but the higher screen resolution would be nice, however the portability is much more important.

    Yes, the graphics would suck. But the graphic guys could get the C2D with good graphics, and the audio guys like myself could get the processing power without the good graphics, because we don't need them.

Share This Page