Where did the 13" go?

BadlyDrawnGirl

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2006
75
0
New Zealand
Sorry if this is a dumb question but this is my first foray into the "Pro" side of Mac laptops (currently I have a loyal and trustworthy iBook G4 which has lasted me many years but is now on its last leg, due in part to having yogurt spilled all over it...) and I was just wondering why Apple discontinued the 13" Macbook Pro. I'm seriously looking into upgrading to the Pro version but the 15" model looks so cumbersome, and I travel often with my laptop.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,410
10,891
UK
There was only ever a 12" Powerbook G4, but it was only slightly lighter than the iBook G4.

What would be wrong with replacing your current machine with a Macbook, they've been redone so they should be more reliable too.
 

TEG

macrumors 604
Jan 21, 2002
6,571
49
Langley, Washington
There was never a 13" MacBook Pro, however, there was a 12" PowerBook G4. At present there is only the 13" MacBook. The real disadvantage to the MB v. the MBP is the integrated Graphics of the former.

Hopefully Apple will either create a smaller MBP for the incredibly small segment of the market that wants it, or they will dump the integrated graphics in the next revision of the MacBook.

TEG
 

Pili

macrumors regular
Nov 1, 2005
212
0
Orlando/Miami, FL
There was no 13" pro notebook, only the 12" powerbook. As to why they discontinued it, who knows but alot of people still want them.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,410
10,891
UK
The real disadvantage to the MB v. the MBP is the integrated Graphics of the former.
Now the MB has an X3100 which can run Aperture et al. who cares, unless you're a gamer* its irrelevant, unless you are doing pro video editing (well motion) as no other Pro app uses the graphics card at all.

* and gaming on a laptop is foolish anyway unless you are stupidly rich so you can spend £3000 on a decent gaming laptop.
 

TEG

macrumors 604
Jan 21, 2002
6,571
49
Langley, Washington
Now the MB has an X3100 which can run Aperture et al. who cares, unless you're a gamer* its irrelevant, unless you are doing pro video editing (well motion) as no other Pro app uses the graphics card at all.

* and gaming on a laptop is foolish anyway unless you are stupidly rich so you can spend £3000 on a decent gaming laptop.
I 'game' on my laptop. Mainly because I have no other machine, plus, how much concentration does SimCity 4 require anyway.

TEG
 

BadlyDrawnGirl

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2006
75
0
New Zealand
Thanks for the responses guys...sorry, what I meant by 13" is the smaller model of the "pro" version of Apple notebooks, i.e. the 12" Powerbook. Did they just decide that a small-scale option of the Macbook Pro was not profitable?

The main reason I was considering a Pro model is because my partner (who is also paying part of the bill, so I kind of have to accomodate him a little, lol) wants to be able to play World of Warcraft on it, since we only have one computer. He hasn't played it since he sold his desktop since we started traveling and apparently is going into withdrawal. I was told that the regular Macbook's integrated graphics card wouldn't be able to handle it.
 

TheStu

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2006
1,245
0
Carlisle, PA
Thanks for the responses guys...sorry, what I meant by 13" is the smaller model of the "pro" version of Apple notebooks, i.e. the 12" Powerbook. Did they just decide that a small-scale option of the Macbook Pro was not profitable?

The main reason I was considering a Pro model is because my partner (who is also paying part of the bill, so I kind of have to accomodate him a little, lol) wants to be able to play World of Warcraft on it, since we only have one computer. He hasn't played it since he sold his desktop since we started traveling and apparently is going into withdrawal. I was told that the regular Macbook's integrated graphics card wouldn't be able to handle it.
It can handle the game. WoW is nowhere near as graphically as intensive as people make out. And as an interesting aside... here are the 3 most commonly used graphics cards on Steam
1: ATi 9800
2: nVidia 5600
3: nVidia 6600

Older cards, and midrange ones. And IMO, WoW is significantly less graphically intense than Half-Life 2 for example.
 

whidbeyben

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2007
31
20
West Coast
Apple needs a 12.1" MB Pro/Toshiba R500 equiv

I agree with originator of this thread that Apple really needs a 12.1" ultracompact MacBook Pro. Not everyone wants to be tooling around in a tricked out Escalade ESV. Some prefer an XK convertible. Apple really needs to look at the Toshiba R500 (http://www.notebookreview.com/price/default.asp?productFamilyID=1008&display=priceDetail) and copy it. I especially like the under 2.5 pound weight and transreflective LED backlit display that is direct sunlight viewable. They are also offering a 1.7 pound version with ultra power-efficient and lightweight flash based solid state "hard drive". Look Ma, no moving parts! This notebook is sexy, sleek and everything the next MacBook Pro needs to be (except no Mac OS, just Microsoft crap). Throw in a multitouch flip-able display, and Apple could clobber both the ultracompact market and notepad markets with a single massive blow. Where are those creative and visionary designers when you need them?
 

Scarlet Fever

macrumors 68040
Jul 22, 2005
3,265
0
Bookshop!
BadlyDrawnGirl; the 13.3" MacBooks are awesome. They are equal in almost every aspect to the MacBook Pros (the graphics card is an obvious exception). If it's power, portability and low price you want, get a MacBook.


Apple really needs a 12.1" ultracompact MacBook Pro.
[rant] I don't know about the rest of the computing population, but to me, a 12.1" is a small notebook, and a >10" is an ultraportable. Apple didn't go around saying the 12" PowerBooks or iBooks were ultraportables. [/rant]
 

BadlyDrawnGirl

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2006
75
0
New Zealand
As far as "portable" versus "ultra-portable" goes, I had a peek into the Sony store in Wellington earlier this week and saw some truly microscopic laptops. I'm a tiny 5'0" myself so I'm all for small things, but those ultra-teensy Vaios seemed ridiculous. I could barely fit MY hands on the keyboard let alone my 6'0" partner's hands. To me my 12" iBook is the perfect size for a laptop for me: the screen is more than adequate, the keyboard is full-size, but I can fit it in my messenger bag and have it not completely weigh me down. It's also inobtrusive enough to have in wifi-enabled cafes (a must, since this is how I access the Internet 85% of the time when I'm traveling). I feel like I would like to upgrade to some higher-end features with my new machine, but I just can't make myself pay almost a grand extra for a bigger laptop when I don't even WANT a bigger one. Still, I suppose it's more compact than most laptops with the same specs...

I would absolutely snatch up a Macbook if it weren't for two hesitations:

1) The graphics card. Mainly a concern for my partner, but it is a big concern for him.
2) The glossy screen. I can't STAND it. I don't want to be staring at my reflection every time I look at the screen.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
There was no 13" pro notebook, only the 12" powerbook. As to why they discontinued it, who knows but alot of people still want them.
The old architecture allowed the Pro versions of the iBook, since the GPU was a separate component (CPU + Intrepid + GPU) and the case was designed for three hot chips. With the Powerbook 12 just using a more advanced GPU, it was still basically the same machine design as the iBook.

Now the same case still has 3 hot chips but the Intrepid was replaced by two chips (CPU + Northbridge + Southbridge) and Apple switched to using the Intel GPU in the Northbridge.

All a MacBook Pro 13 would be is a more expensive version of the Black MacBook, since the room for another big chip, fan, and heatsink isn't there.

Apple can shitcan the Black MacBook and replace it with a more expensive aluminum one, but the performance would be exactly the same as the MacBook.

And people complain about the Black tax now.

---

Basically the switch to Intel sort of killed the Intel version of the PowerBook 12.

If it comes back, it'll have to be an all new design -- not the refreshed old designs we have now.
 

BadlyDrawnGirl

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2006
75
0
New Zealand
Gotcha. That makes sense - thanks for taking the time to explain it. I figured it might have something to do with the heat factor (my iBook gets awfully toasty just sitting on my lap, however it goes get awfully chilly in NZ in winter so it hasn't always been a bad thing, lol).

Since we're on the topic though...why IS the black version more expensive? I know, I could probably search for it, but you just mentioned it and I'm already typing, so. :p
 

queshy

macrumors 68040
Apr 2, 2005
3,687
3
I find my 15.4" mbp to be super portable, almost as portable as the macbook we also have. It's only 1" bigger. Unless you fly often, it's not that different.

Besides, the new mbs are rocking fast!!
 

BadlyDrawnGirl

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2006
75
0
New Zealand
I think that as long as the Macbook can handle mild to moderately graphic-intensive programs I'll be fine with it. I use Photoshop a lot and I find my current iBook (1.33Ghz) hangs up quite a bit during heavy use. Of course, it could be that the hard drive has only 3 gig of space left on it...
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,410
10,891
UK
I think that as long as the Macbook can handle mild to moderately graphic-intensive programs I'll be fine with it. I use Photoshop a lot and I find my current iBook (1.33Ghz) hangs up quite a bit during heavy use. Of course, it could be that the hard drive has only 3 gig of space left on it...
The Intel machines are a lot quicker than a G4, so you shouldn't notice any slowdown. The X3100 graphics card in the Macbook will definitely be fine for WoW.
 

iW00t

macrumors 68040
Nov 7, 2006
3,286
0
Defenders of Apple Guild
* and gaming on a Mac is foolish anyway unless you are stupidly rich so you can spend £3000 on a decent gaming laptop.
There, fixed that for ya... what computers in Apple's line are capable of playing a game made in the last 2 years smoothly?

Even my MacBook Pro stutters with an old game like Civ IV.
 

BadlyDrawnGirl

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 25, 2006
75
0
New Zealand
There, fixed that for ya... what computers in Apple's line are capable of playing a game made in the last 2 years smoothly?

Even my MacBook Pro stutters with an old game like Civ IV.
Bleh...50% of the people I ask say that the Macbooks integrated graphics card is more than suitable for a game like WoW and the other half say even a Macbook Pro is completely UNsuitable. I really want another Mac but my partner will throw a hissy fit unless he can find a suitable match for a PC's gaming ability. I do not want to be hauling around the enormous HP laptop that he's got his eye on. Will maxing out the RAM on the Macbook compensate slightly for its lack of a graphics card?
 

mosx

macrumors 65816
Mar 3, 2007
1,465
0
Now the MB has an X3100 which can run Aperture et al. who cares, unless you're a gamer* its irrelevant, unless you are doing pro video editing (well motion) as no other Pro app uses the graphics card at all.

* and gaming on a laptop is foolish anyway unless you are stupidly rich so you can spend £3000 on a decent gaming laptop.
Thats not true at all. If you want to game on your laptop, you can find Windows notebooks with the 256MB GeForce 8600M GT for less than half of the cost of the MacBook Pro with the same GPU. You can even find 512MB GeForce 8600M GTs in 15.4" notebooks for around $1350. For less than $1900 you can find systems by Toshiba and others with dual 256MB GeForce 8600M GTs. If you go up to $2500 you can get yourself a Windows notebook with dual GeForce 7950 GTX with a total of 1GB of video memory.

Yes I have a MacBook. Yes I am extremely upset with Apple right now for screwing me over in more than one way.
 

whidbeyben

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2007
31
20
West Coast
Is Which Laptop really the pertinent question?

Hey BadlyDrawnGirl,

You need the newly upgraded MacBook. Your Partner should be more concerned about getting something that suits your particular needs. You don't really want him spending more time on WoW than you now do you? Let him get his own 12 pound HP monstrosity. If he really cares for you, Santa will slip a nice black Macbook under the Christmas tree.:D
 

kaiwai

macrumors 6502a
Oct 21, 2007
710
0
Christchurch
Now the MB has an X3100 which can run Aperture et al. who cares, unless you're a gamer* its irrelevant, unless you are doing pro video editing (well motion) as no other Pro app uses the graphics card at all.

* and gaming on a laptop is foolish anyway unless you are stupidly rich so you can spend £3000 on a decent gaming laptop.
If you have a look at the ultra portables on Lenovo and others, they all use the low profile integrated graphics anyway. So itsn't as though Apple is out to 'screw the customer'. There is a price, want more power, need more power. Want a smaller laptop, compromises are made.

One could argue as well that if you wanted 'more power' you'd get a more powerful laptop; the idea of a 12inch is mobility ahead of performance.
 

erikistired

macrumors 6502
Apr 21, 2006
400
0
(770)
Bleh...50% of the people I ask say that the Macbooks integrated graphics card is more than suitable for a game like WoW and the other half say even a Macbook Pro is completely UNsuitable. I really want another Mac but my partner will throw a hissy fit unless he can find a suitable match for a PC's gaming ability. I do not want to be hauling around the enormous HP laptop that he's got his eye on. Will maxing out the RAM on the Macbook compensate slightly for its lack of a graphics card?
imho my mbp with an ati x1600 isn't GREAT for wow. it plays it fine, 30 fps usually, but stuff like the vashj fight bogs it. most of the graphics settings are at mid or low. i much prefer my desktop, and the mbp has a dedicated graphics chip. take that for what it is, but i actually play the game, a lot. if he's super casual, the mb might be okay, but if he really PLAYS, you might find a way to let him try it out first.

edit: i have not played wow on the current 8600m chip mpbs, which from what i've heard makes a big difference. however, i can't imagine the integrated x3100 is a lot faster than the dedicated x1600.
 

MacBooksRock

macrumors regular
Nov 27, 2007
155
0
imho my mbp with an ati x1600 isn't GREAT for wow. it plays it fine, 30 fps usually, but stuff like the vashj fight bogs it. most of the graphics settings are at mid or low. i much prefer my desktop, and the mbp has a dedicated graphics chip. take that for what it is, but i actually play the game, a lot. if he's super casual, the mb might be okay, but if he really PLAYS, you might find a way to let him try it out first.

edit: i have not played wow on the current 8600m chip mpbs, which from what i've heard makes a big difference. however, i can't imagine the integrated x3100 is a lot faster than the dedicated x1600.
The MacBook will play Call of Duty 2 with maxed out settings, amazingly enough...:D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.