When will we get a 13" High Res MBP?

[Dooger]

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.

You mean the same Diablo2112 who starts threads just to bang on about the iSight indicator?
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9972066&#post9972066

No thanks, I already know about the "issues" apple has with fitting a decent processor into their 13s because I read this 5 weeks ago:
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/19/another-look-at-apples-core-2-duo-choice-for-new-13-inch-macbook-pro/

However, as I've stated, I find it difficult to believe that a computer manufacturer cannot work around this or even compromise for a power user expecting a little more from a pro machine.

And as for the lack of confidence in my professionalism, get a grip, you obviously have no idea of the gallows humour that many doctors engage in

 

[DesmoPilot]

1440x900 Would be the perfect resolution for a 13" display; absolutely hated dealing with 1280x800 on my old MacBook.

 

[Tom71]

In fact, the low resolution was a key factor for me to not choose the 13in. The 13in was my favorite earlier. 1280x800 is really too low of a resolution for a 13in, imho.

 

[Gruber]

You are not going to see substantial increases in resolution anytime soon, because Apple (unlike Microsoft) has not gotten around to supporting resolution independence in their desktop operating system.

If you increase the screen resolution on a PC, you can also adjust the DPI settings in Vista. All widgets and text will appear at the original (large) size, but much crisper.

Apple has been aiming for resolution independence in their interface guidelines for several years now. Unfortunately, they did not follow these guidelines themselves.
If you adjust the DPI settings in current Apple OSes (works with the commandline, only), you will notice that almost all Apple applications (including Finder and Mail) will have a broken interface (mostly due to misaligned buttons and menus).

Apple can probably fix this for the native apps within a few months, but it is going to take a year before the other vendors will adjust their interfaces. Thus, I would expect to get a year's notice (via announcement of support for resolution independence) before Apple seriously increases the resolution in their notebooks.

 

[Santabean2000]

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.

Exactly. Bickering fools, SSshhhh.

too small of a screen to have hi res imo.

Screen size not an issue for bumping res really. The current font size of a high res 17" is smaller than the standard 13" font size, i.e. for any blind mice out there a 13" would actually be easier to read, but you just can't fit as many words on the screen at one time

As far as the topic, I would prefer a matte display to high resolution.

I hear ya brother!

 

[LedCop]

You really think Apple prices their computers by costs

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

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.

Unless what you're saying is that the Core2Duos currently in use in the 13" MBPs cost the same as the 2.4GHz i5, Apple would be making less money by fitting the i5 in the 13" MBP and I don't see why they would want to do that.

...

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.

Apple isn't going to bother with two completely different motherboard+GPU+CPU designs for each MacBook Pro form factor.