New macbook 13 a joke?

Would you still buy the BMW if it has a 0-60 in 20 seconds and top speed of 100km/h?

 

This makes it an easy decision.

Asus U30jc-a1 here I come... 9.5 hours of battery life, looks just as nice as the macbook (imo), i3, 1366x768... $850.

 

Can't really complain about the Macbook Pro speeds. My laptop boots up in around 25-27 seocnds and shuts down within 3-4 seconds Sure things could be quicker but with a SSD in a Macbook Pro or even a regular Macbook that computer is quite quick and capable. Many programs also open in a split second from the time you click on them. With my SSD on my Macbook Pro just about everything I click on opens as I remove my finger of the keyboard which is pretty damn quick.

The bad part about my Macbook Pro 15" model is that I only get about 2.5 hours of battery life out of it and it is too heavy and big to carry around.

 

A great buy for the money but if you hang out at the Starbucks you won't be cool like all the other guys

 

People at Apple were sneaky. If they offered you the new CPU then you would not buy the SSD option They can make more money off of you and increase their earnings buy getting you to buy the SSD instead of offering you a quicker and more up to date CPU.

 

Oh, I didn't even think about that... oh wait, I haven't gone to $tarbuck$ in close to 5 years haha

 

Because the Coffee is too expensive

 

yep I am looking at this laptop and it is pretty much everything I expected out of the 13 inch update(though according to some reviews the 9.5 hour battery life is closer to 4.5)

 

Lol has the 13 ever not been a joke? Its a $1000 netbook. People who buy the 13inch don't care about core 2/i3. In fact they probably would be more inclined to think core 2 is faster because they haven't heard of i3. Or they might think apple made the i3 because it has an i.

The 13 inch was ok about 1-2 years ago when I got mine, but since then has never really been upgraded because its essentially the Porsche boxster of macs (except the boxster is actually good product), people buy it to say they have a mac they don't care about whats in it.

The 15 and 17inch were actually pretty decently upgraded.

 

People here are boasting 8 hours without trying to conserve battery.

 

Dell did not add any core i processes to any of their 13" laptops

 

at least they're including 4GB of RAM standard now lol

 

Except I am not going to be upgrading to an SSD, and will only choose SSD if it comes standard. I am not dumb enough to pay their insane price for such an upgrade...

 

Yes they have. They added it to the Dell Vostro 3300. It is quite thin and light too. HIgh end graphics with the i3.

 

has the option for an i5 as well in a 13" machine

 

doesn't lenovo thinkpad x201 series have an i5 with same batt life? oh wait no nvm the gfx are integrated.

 

Still says that Lenovo's able to put 2.5Ghz+ into a very small footprint. Just now got a touchpad and apparently has the option for the Core i7-620 eventually. The 13" MBP even weighs 30% more than the X201 w/ 9 cell.

It's really a niche market computer though. Not a ton of people can do heavy productivity on a 12" unless they're traveling to sites with external monitors. It'd probably work well for me as a developer but a GPU would definitely be a nice add on.

 

Yes it is disappointment so when USB3 comes out I will be looking at what Dell has especially in the Studio Xps line.

 

Vosrto 3300
325 x 20.1-28.6 x 229

MBP 13"
wxhxd
325 x 24.1 x 227

while that looks close, for some its closer than others, that huge butt on the Vostro is a huge help in cooling that the Macbook Pro doesn't have. I hope to get i3s in the Macbook Pro 13" that Apple doesn't have to make something so dang ugly.

 

Can't say that I'm very impressed with what Apple put in their 13" lappy. No Core i5/i7 processors and average graphics for $1199.

 

Though I'm not an Apple fan any more, I was watching the impending update with curiousity for the last several months. This update makes me kind of wonder the direction Apple is taking. I can only think that either Apple is moving toward becoming more of an ipod company than a computer company, or Apple as a company has become so arrogant that they believe they don't need to compete with other computer manufacturers. It's kind of interesting to ponder.

 

The fact is, Apple is targeting a niche market with their computer products. The iPad is ridiculously pretty but also ridiculously unfunctional. Apple could have easily put an i3/i5 core into the 13" mbp. Like the iPad, the "new" mbp will still sell for a profit. The truth is the people buying Apple products just don't care about specs too much. They want candy-colored stuff. Stuff that looks nice and this is how Apple still makes money.

 

I agree that it looks nice and is built like a tank. Has an amazing battery with good retention of its life even after many charges... But besides that nearly everyone has one and they are STILL jacking up the prices for essentially the same chassis but slightly better components (silver does really get old). Its funny how i get customers walking into best buy and tell me that they want a mac because they do graphics... How in this world has word of mouth deduced such a truth?

 

Funny...the only people I know that use Macs happen to be designers.

I like the idea of OS X for nothing other than the novelty of it. Reality is I still use Windows based software for everything I do except web browsing and internet, so it is pointless for me to consider anything but Windows--especially with the pathetic "update" of the MBP 13.

 

have you used an ipad? even once? "ridiculously unfunctional" is the last term i'd use to describe it. limited, definitely. overly sculpted and primped, maybe. but it's more useful than anything else of its kind up to this point, and every manufacturer out there is making an "ipad killer" tablet to compete with it. and they will probably fall woefully short.

apple's philosophy is to make a product that is beautiful and interacts beautifully with people; the expense is that bleeding edge capability that people like us here on notebookreview expect and even demand.

i find it highly amusing that someone thinks the 13" is a joke and/or a "glorified netbook". i sold my air, and i'm selling my 15" unibody pro, and getting a new 13. because i want a smaller laptop than my 15, but i want to be able to use my SSD (no go on the air).

i have a core i7 desktop for my hardcore computing needs... the 13" pro will be a F*CKING AWESOME computer because it will last FOREVER without needing a charge! and it has comparable graphics to any core ix notebook out there, because they all use intel HD in some capacity! if they don't, they have a discrete GPU, and their battery life is 1/2 the time or less than the 13. easy decision, for me anyway.

 

On campus, many students get overpriced Macs b/c it's pretty and hey it's an Apple product. It's Jobs' marketing skill and his company style/design that people buy. I wish I could have him as a mentor.

The only pro with those grossly overpriced laptop is the amazing battery life.

 

For a while I was thinking about waiting for the 13's refresh. I'm sure glad I didn't! What a shame.

Looks like my ThinkPad T510 decision was the right one.

 

Glad you made the right choice. I wish I could go with Lenovo but I don't see a 13" laptop in their line up with i3 processors AT LEAST.

 

The 13" MBP might be a disappointment in other regards, but the 320M looks quite good by IGP standards with its 48 shader cores. It's hard to say how it will perform overall, but if you wanted to play some older games away from a power outlet I could see the appeal. In particular, this could probably be a great machine for people who just want to play World of Warcraft.

I think it's because of the choice of the 320M that the 13" doesn't have a Core i CPU - those come with their own integrated graphics, after all. The lack of discrete graphics means it stacks up rather poorly against the VAIO Z or the Acer TimelineX, but for some people the 320M is probably good enough.

 

X201 is has an i7-620 which is best intel processor for laptops, but its 12" x301 which is 13", wait for the refresh which it will also have i5 and i7 processors, the x series is great and the price will be very reasonalbe compared to the new mbp which much better specs

I honestly think it's funny that mbp users think it's built like a tank, truly it's not, go and drop your mbp on concrete, the drop a thinkpad on concrete you will see what's built like a tank.

To me I would consider it had they put a i5 and a 330 GT then for $1300 it would a good powerful laptop but apple fails to go to extra steps to be better or on par with the competion

I own many apple products but the computer is like eye candy I know its a great looking laptop that has great build quality, but the fact it's overpriced with outdated tech it is just not worth the extra money to me, compared to other computers on the market

 

You'd have to go either an inch smaller, or an inch larger to get a core i Lenovo notebook.

 

The 13" MPBs do not get Arrandale upgrades because Apple is convinced that people will keep paying $1199 for C2D laptops (just because they are made by Apple, run OSX, and marketed as "Pro" models). As long as people are happy with paying 2008 prices for (almost) 2008 technology in 2010, why upgrade? Might as well milk it for what it is worth. It is good for the company.

 

You're right. I wasn't aware of this change on teh business line

 

+1

the Core i5 (edited from an i3) in the 13" MBP would be a fail. It would draw too much power. The C2D in the MBP is enough for almost every task. What are you people doing with your 13" computers that require "super computer" like data crunching. When the Core i overclocks itself it will draw more power. Several reviews have stated that the Arrandale CPU line (Not the ULV) are not very energy efficient. I would take 50-70% more battery life on the go for a 10-20% performance drop in CPU speeds. Go use and Atom or Su7300 and see how nice it is to have a C2D at 2.4-2.66 last over 8 hours. It is a feat. Stop crying about not having a core i. It makes no sense in this configuration. If you require more bandwidth then upgrade to a laptop with a core i 7qm. the 13" MBP is a decent machine. I will mention my disappointment with the pricing between the 2 models... $300 for 222 mhz + 70 gb otherwise I would say the it is a decent computer. Compare it to the HP Envy 13. The MBP will wipe the floor with it for less money.

 

Why are you spouting such idiocy? The Core i3 doesn't have turbo and its clocked in the low 2Ghz range w/ hyperthreading and 32nm construction which generally means better efficiency over the old 45nm Core2Duo. It includes an onboard video and memory controller which is why the wattage hasn't decreased but it should actually be more compact than a Penryn (Core2Duo) system. Lenovo fit the Core i5/i7 into its 12" X201 and claims ~11hrs on a 9 cell battery. It even weighs 1lb less and would likely beat the MBP in any durability tests.

 

+1

I'd say you've hit the nail on the head (or at least a nail, maybe not THE nail). For the average user, the 13" model isn't terrible (except maybe for the price). Lots of time away from the cord to type papers, do your taxes, download your class notes, surf for the latest news, etc. Not great to play Crysis on, but does the average (non-notebookforum) user really use their laptop for serious gaming?

+1 for some sticker shock.

This is my biggest disappointment. I wasn't expecting a drastic price reduction per se, but I'm having a hard time swallowing $1200 for the low-end model.

 

Sorry I did forget that the i3 doesn't overclock I guess I was thinking of the i5. You have my apologies. No need to be rude.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2902/4

 

Such misconceptions get spread as truth in the gospel of Apple. The i3/i5 aren't any less efficient than the C2D and should be more compact given the reduced # of chips needed.

Apologies for the tone...just get tired of defense of anything Apple does as being altruistic or truly optimized. The real answer is Apple did market research and realized that people are willing to pay a premium to get into the MBP product range and decided to maximize their profits as all companies should do. Sure battery life is impressive but 13" MBP's still cost at a premium to Core i powered ultraportables that have similarly long battery life.

 

I agree. Apple overprices everything. There are some that defend Apple regardless of the facts. I think the biggest fail of the new MBP is the lack of the i7qm in the 15 and 17" versions. I also think the 13" should either lose the optical drive or add a blue ray burner in its place. I am mostly a PC guy. I do own a Aluminum unibody macbook and love it. It has been great. To have better performance and double the battery life, the new 13" MBP looks pretty good. What Apple should have done is lower their prices a bit 999 for the low end model and 1099 for the higher end, then I think people would have been totally okay with the new refresh.

Truly though, I am disappointed with Intel for delaying their Arrandale ULVs. Imagine a Core i7-640UM in a 13" MBP.

 

It depends what you compare it to. Compared to a machine with an SP9300 its faster and has much better battery life. Compared to machines like the UL80 its much faster with about the same or better battery life. On the other hand, there are lots of cheap l5-430 machines out there that are faster than the 13" MBP, but they have dismal displays and miserable battery life.

Had Apple simply shrunk the 15" into the 13" chassis there would not have been room for a battery as large as what is in the 15". The result would have been a machine that cost almost as much as the 15" MBP with the same CPU/GPU performance and average battery life. The other alternative was to build something that had only the on CPU Intel graphics solution. That is more or less what Apple is explaining to the public as an i5-430 machine without discrete graphics probably is no better than a C2D with the 320M. The I3 is probably worse.


Look, If it does not meet your needs, nobody is going to force you to buy it.

 

I have been waiting for upgrade on the MBP 13 for a long time, and Apple designs this POS. Some people are really, really stupid...how can you justify paying 2010 money for a 2008 product. Oh wait, its a MacBook Pro! The fanboys are at full force justifying this utter stupid decision by the Apple.

 

How do you explain the Acer 3820TG-624G64n then? Core i7-620M, ATI HD 5650, around 8 hours of battery life, and a price that will probably be around $1200?
It's possible to get great battery life with those kinds of components in a 13" chassis. The VAIO Z is long-standing proof of that, and the only reason that costs as much as the 15" MBP is because it uses solid state drives.

 

The idiocy of Apple not adding arrandale chips to their 13" offering is indefensible. It's not. The core2duo that Apple is using (P9500) came out nearly two years ago. For comparisons sake, when the chip came out, The Dark Knight just came out in the theatres and shattered all the records, Bush was still president, and the China olympics are underway. Now a president change, many movies, and another olympics later, apple is still selling it in a $1k machine? lunacy.

Arrandale chips are 25W CPU and 10W GPU more or less. The Asus laptop that was reviewed here got 8 hours and 15 minutes with a core i3 and a geforce 310 with an eight cell battery. Now the Asus has 84WHr while the old 13" macbook is 60WHr (7 hours). Since Apple manages to cram 3 more hours in, let's just crudely add 26WHr to it, making it comparable in capacity. Apple touts that they have advanced chemistry and blahblahblah, it's hard to imagine that the macbook pro couldn't have had equal or better battery performance. Keep in mind, the asus is REAL WORLD performance so I'm thinking battery life won't be that big of a change.

Supply issues is also a rumor. Many lesser computer manufacturers have i3s already, Fujitsu, Samsung all have 13" i3 laptops.

The only reason the 13" does not have it is because Apple did not want to redesign a logic board to fit a dedicated graphics chip. That's the only reason I can think of. Going arrandale means you must have a dedicated chip and Apple didnt' want to spend money redesigning it to make consumers happy. They're probably betting that Intel will eventually have a strong integrated solution so this won't be a problem next generation, or they're just putting off the inevitable becasue I don't see Intel ever making another mobile chip without graphics on the dye.

 

That does not make much sense to me -- since Arrandale is electrically incompatible with C2D, moving to Core i3 would require a complete logic board redesign anyway -- with or without a discrete GPU.

 

I think he's saying the current refreshed C2D 13" model doesn't require a fresh board...only a different GPU soldered to the board.

 

I thought FrozenDarkness was referring to logic board redesign as a possible reason why Apple did not upgrade 13" MBP to Core i3.

 

I'd have to agree with this. Also factor in that the macbook (white) will probably get this newer gpu in a few months, and then there will be very little to say hello I'm a Pro in the current 13". Not to mention the PR confusion at apple.... the i5/7 is sooooo much faster and better than a c2d and offers excellent battery life in the 15"... but the i3/5 is crap and would sacrifice battery life in a 13".

The only thing I can conclude is apple didn't want to cut profit margins on the 13" which is probably there biggest seller. I suspect that in 6 months when the i3's and the 310s are cheaper, the 13" will get a nice little upgrade.
a

 

Completely agree, rip off Apple sadly.

Funnily enough Apple are quick off the mark defending the move. Hold on Steve, you're saying that the move to iX is a tiny improvement in the 13" model and therefore preferred a big boost in graphics. If that's the case why are you making such a big deal of Core i5/i7 in the 15/17" models? Seems a bit of a contradiction and Apple can't have it both ways.