Why all the negatives??

millertime021

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 28, 2010
640
0
AZ
So on the all the new posts about the MBP there are about the same number of Positive ratings as there are negatives.

Whats the deal?

Is it mostly people mad about the 13" not being upgraded to an ix processor.
And is it from people who have MBPs that are under a year and a half old so they don't see this as a big upgrade?

I'm just curious because I've been looking forward to this upgrade so I can up my iBook G4.

Is this really that bad of an update to the Pro line?
 

petsk

macrumors 6502
Oct 13, 2009
349
217
Well, the waiting was long and I was expecting a bit more than this. They are lacking behind their competitors but they still charge you 2 times more.

The updates are overall insignificant, especially on the poor 13 inch model (wish I'm not interested in anyway before a high-res screen is released, and that will never happen).
 

millertime021

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 28, 2010
640
0
AZ
Well yes, it would be great to have one cook for us. haha

And I'm looking at the 15" one, so I really don't care about the update or lack there of, to the 13".

I hate the look of the screen for some reason. The dimensions.


I just didn't wanna get one of these and have the next update be in 4 months and be 3x better.

But I guess so is life. haha
 

joina

macrumors member
Oct 24, 2009
56
0
Bath,uk
a GT330m is just not enough....dont compare with sony their 330m are all in 1024mb....at apple you have to get a high-end 15 or 17 and it it still 512.
 

panzer06

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2006
3,012
70
Kilrath
a GT330m is just not enough....dont compare with sony their 330m are all in 1024mb....at apple you have to get a high-end 15 or 17 and it it still 512.
The amount of dedicated ram is an annoyance at high resolutions but Apple laptops don't really have hi-res displays. More important is the pitiful GT330m is really a mediocre mid-range card not much better than the 8600 and 9600 from years past no matter how much ram you throw in.

There are much better ATI solutions in the same thermal range as this weak card. For $1800 to $2300 these systems should have at the very least an ATI5830.

Cheers,
 

definitive

macrumors 68000
Aug 4, 2008
1,957
699
here's what's happening:

the pc-to-mac people (long time windows users) know what's up, and are displeased with the insignificant update and the price hike.

the apple fanboys who put unibody and the apple experience at the top of their priorities list in a computer only see that something "new" has been released by their gods at apple, so they're happy and are saying "haters gonna hate."
 

joina

macrumors member
Oct 24, 2009
56
0
Bath,uk
The amount of dedicated ram is an annoyance at high resolutions but Apple laptops don't really have hi-res displays. More important is the pitiful GT330m is really a mediocre mid-range card not much better than the 8600 and 9600 from years past no matter how much ram you throw in.

There are much better ATI solutions in the same thermal range as this weak card. For $1800 to $2300 these systems should have at the very least an ATI5830.

Cheers,
some people said 330 is still in some 1600eur sonys that is why i said at least give a 1024 GT330. well, i wish we can have ATI 5XXX too but i know apple wont give good GPU
 

panzer06

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2006
3,012
70
Kilrath
some people said 330 is still in some 1600eur sonys that is why i said at least give a 1024 GT330. well, i wish we can have ATI 5XXX too but i know apple wont give good GPU
Sony is the Windows version of Apple. Charging $$ for style while providing lower spec GPU. The recent FW to F transition is a perfect example. I abandoned Sony for my gaming rigs two years ago because of their slavish devotion to style over graphics prowess.

Tis indeed sad that Apple and Sony will never change. They have many, many customers who will pay for style over substance.

Cheers,
 

The Samurai

macrumors 68000
Dec 29, 2007
1,962
427
Glasgow
OP

People will always moan. No one is perfect in life. I put money down that if the 13" MBP's got the quad core - people would say "WTF WHERE IS BLU RAY" or "WTF IS USB 3" or "WTF SO EXPENSIVE, OMGZZZZR".

It always happens. Every refresh.

Its usually the final stage.
 

millertime021

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 28, 2010
640
0
AZ
OP

People will always moan. No one is perfect in life. I put money down that if the 13" MBP's got the quad core - people would say "WTF WHERE IS BLU RAY" or "WTF IS USB 3" or "WTF SO EXPENSIVE, OMGZZZZR".

It always happens. Every refresh.




Its usually the final stage.
Haha ya that's what I'm thinking. Especially in the computer market. Yes I'd like to have all these features but really. It's not absolutely a must.
 

illmatic715

macrumors newbie
Mar 19, 2010
9
0
So on the all the new posts about the MBP there are about the same number of Positive ratings as there are negatives.

Whats the deal?

Is it mostly people mad about the 13" not being upgraded to an ix processor.
And is it from people who have MBPs that are under a year and a half old so they don't see this as a big upgrade?

I'm just curious because I've been looking forward to this upgrade so I can up my iBook G4.

Is this really that bad of an update to the Pro line?
No it's not, I'm happy with all three. People are just greedy. It's impossible to satisfy everyone.
 

drew0020

macrumors 68000
Nov 10, 2006
1,724
264
No it's not, I'm happy with all three. People are just greedy. It's impossible to satisfy everyone.
Greedy is Blu Ray, USB3, etc. Asking for a processor that is newer than 3 years old in a 13" Pro laptop is not greedy. Just because some people are foolish enough to love it because Apple did it doesn't make it right.
 

Amnak

macrumors 6502
Nov 16, 2009
461
48
Greedy is Blu Ray, USB3, etc. Asking for a processor that is newer than 3 years old in a 13" Pro laptop is not greedy. Just because some people are foolish enough to love it because Apple did it doesn't make it right.
Right but people saying the core i 3,5,7s are old is greedy sure they are what some three + months old but I don't see what's replacing them.
 

rnb2

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2006
212
0
West Haven, CT, USA
Greedy is Blu Ray, USB3, etc. Asking for a processor that is newer than 3 years old in a 13" Pro laptop is not greedy. Just because some people are foolish enough to love it because Apple did it doesn't make it right.
Case in point - saying that the Core 2 Duo in the 13" is "3 years old". The basics of this generation are more like, what, 16 months old? And until January, it was the best line of processors for laptops. Is it bleeding edge? No, but it may be the only chip that meets the necessary TDP to not overheat in the 13" MBP - the Core 2 Duos have a TDP of 25 watts, vs. 35 for all of the current i3 and i5 chips.
 

drew0020

macrumors 68000
Nov 10, 2006
1,724
264
Case in point - saying that the Core 2 Duo in the 13" is "3 years old". The basics of this generation are more like, what, 16 months old? And until January, it was the best line of processors for laptops. Is it bleeding edge? No, but it may be the only chip that meets the necessary TDP to not overheat in the 13" MBP - the Core 2 Duos have a TDP of 25 watts, vs. 35 for all of the current i3 and i5 chips.
Fair point but Apple waited an extraordinary long time to update these computers. I can understand a C2D in the Macbook but not the Pro. Apple should have figured something else out or dropped the price accordingly. $1,199 and $1,499 are way too expensive for these machines in my opinion.
 

yensteel

macrumors regular
Aug 17, 2009
103
2
I think the updates are well worth the wait.

However, The biggest mistake that Apple has done is not implementing USB 3.0 in any of their products yet.
 

kasakka

macrumors 68020
Oct 25, 2008
2,064
735
a GT330m is just not enough....dont compare with sony their 330m are all in 1024mb....at apple you have to get a high-end 15 or 17 and it it still 512.
1GB VRAM would do absolutely no good for that card. It's not powerful enough to run anything at high enough resolutions to warrant that much VRAM. 512 MB is plenty. Other manufacturers simply boost their specs with the more = better ethos, just to make their machines seem better on paper.

And the C2D being 3 years old is a bit silly. There have been several improvements to the tech over the years. The old E6400 I had ran at much higher voltages and put out more heat than my much newer Q9550.
 

GregGebhardt

macrumors 6502
Feb 5, 2010
313
0
It is just the way people are these days. Maybe it is the economy but there are all kinds that complain, whine and bash.:mad:

Maybe they are just protecting their "old" equipment and rationalizing why they should/can't buy new.:confused:
 

firsttimemac

macrumors newbie
Feb 6, 2010
24
0
Case in point - saying that the Core 2 Duo in the 13" is "3 years old". The basics of this generation are more like, what, 16 months old? And until January, it was the best line of processors for laptops. Is it bleeding edge? No, but it may be the only chip that meets the necessary TDP to not overheat in the 13" MBP - the Core 2 Duos have a TDP of 25 watts, vs. 35 for all of the current i3 and i5 chips.
Do you even hear yourself. The 2.4 is the exact same processor that Apple had implemented in the 2008 model.

And just because the Apple gods would have little trouble handling the extra heat that does not mean that they can give us this old tech at 1500$.
 

Stetrain

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2009
3,547
17
If I understand the situation correctly, Apple is in between a rock and a hard place with this Intel vs NVidia situation.

Given that they are probably going to stick with Intel processors for the long term, they only had a few choices as far as CPU/GPU goes:

1) Stick with the old generation of processors which do not include Intel graphics built in, allowing Apple to use a better integrated graphics solution from NVidia and avoid the added cost of putting two GPUs into their entry level machines.

2) Move to the new processors from Intel which have integrated graphics built in. These graphics are probably fine for something like the non-pro Macbook but for anyone wanting to run Photoshop or other apps they would need to add a discrete GPU. As far as I know only NVidia offers a discrete GPU solution that integrates with Intel's graphics system and allows them to be switched back and forth via software for maximum battery savings.

Therefore, every Core i5 and i7 Macbook Pro got a discrete 330M GPU. This also explains why the entry level 15" got bumped up in price since the new architecture pretty much requires a discrete GPU for this class of laptop.

I would imagine that when the plastic Macbooks gets upgraded to i series processors at some point in the future they will just use Intel's integrated graphics.

The only thing that I think Apple could have done better would have been a third version of the 13" MBP with a Core i5 and the 330M for around $1599, and drop the 2.66 13" to like $1399. I'm not sure though how many serious Pro buyers Apple gets on the 13", I have a feeling that they are vastly outweighed by college kids who prefer the base line MBP over the MB, so it might not justify the cost of designing a completely different logic board and cooling system.
 

cmChimera

macrumors 68040
Feb 12, 2010
3,911
2,620
I think the updates are well worth the wait.

However, The biggest mistake that Apple has done is not implementing USB 3.0 in any of their products yet.
That's Intel's fault, not Apple's. See what I mean? I'm amazed by the number of people complaining about this, when they haven't done a shred of research.
Fair point but Apple waited an extraordinary long time to update these computers. I can understand a C2D in the Macbook but not the Pro. Apple should have figured something else out or dropped the price accordingly. $1,199 and $1,499 are way too expensive for these machines in my opinion.
Forgive them for giving an already powerful computer more power, a custom graphics card that it's never had, and 10 hours of battery life. No offense, but in my opinion the people complaining about the 13 inch are being pretty ridiculous. If you want more power, go for the 15 inch. And before someone says, OH WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO OMG!? Because you always did. The 15 and the 17 inch notebooks were always more powerful. You were always sacrificing screen real estate AND power using the 13 inch. And then of course the next argument is, well it's ancient technology. Get over yourself, seriously. One of the computers I see thrown around here as an awesome PC, is the Alienware M11x.....Have you even bothered to look at its processor? BTO OPTION is a Core 2 Duo.

Do you even hear yourself. The 2.4 is the exact same processor that Apple had implemented in the 2008 model.

And just because the Apple gods would have little trouble handling the extra heat that does not mean that they can give us this old tech at 1500$.
1. 2008 model came out less than 2 years ago. Way to do math.

2. The graphics card is brand new, and custom made.

3. Again, they should apologize for not melting your lap or desk, and giving you a quality laptop. Bad Apple.
 

shambo

macrumors 6502a
Apr 4, 2009
648
0
So on the all the new posts about the MBP there are about the same number of Positive ratings as there are negatives.

Whats the deal?

Is it mostly people mad about the 13" not being upgraded to an ix processor.
And is it from people who have MBPs that are under a year and a half old so they don't see this as a big upgrade?

I'm just curious because I've been looking forward to this upgrade so I can up my iBook G4.

Is this really that bad of an update to the Pro line?
I did warn people many moons ago to future-proof last year with the most advanced bad boy you could afford. Now all that wait is over and for what exactly, nothing significant.