Does the MBP 13" being complete toilet bother you?

Disco Boy · 20 Jun 2012 at 13:14

Okay so the 13" air isn't very attractive to me because of the lack of power.

The 15" pro would be too expensive by the time I made the spec I wanted. Especially because I'd always regret not getting the retina model if I went for the classic.

So the 13" pro could be perfect for me.... oh wait no, its not. The MBP 13" is just an absolutely terrible purchase.

The main problem is the screen. 1280*800 is just a joke for a "pro" laptop. Until they change this I will not buy one. It's made even more of a joke by the res on the 13" air being higher.

The second problem is the lack of discreet graphics. If they can shoehorn in discrete graphics to the new thin 15" then they can fit it in the 13" formfactor. This isn't as much of a deterrent nowadays for me, but it still bothers me.

So yeah. I'd probably have bought a 13" pro by now if they weren't so ****.

lamboman · 20 Jun 2012 at 13:45

What do you require from the machine? The 13" MBA is pretty much as powerful as the MBP now, and doesn't really have any disadvantages. The 13" Pro display has superior colour reproduction, but of course, lower resolution.

As for why the 13" MBP doesn't have a discrete GPU...I'd say it's because the 13" isn't a true Pro machine. It's marketing. Space may be an issue because you have to remember that the 15" has more space than the 15" or 17" due to the lack of optical drive and HD bay.

Disco Boy · 20 Jun 2012 at 14:23

2ghz vs 2.9ghz is quite a big difference in performance really. For me the other big advantages are the ability to upgrade RAM and HDD.

That's the other thing, why can you not get a quad core 13"? It makes no sense at all.

Deleted member 77746 · 20 Jun 2012 at 14:25

Disco Boy said:
Okay so the 13" air isn't very attractive to me because of the lack of power.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 13" air was not built for power. I'm angry at your comments.

Donk · 20 Jun 2012 at 14:34

... so if the hardware isn't for you .....don't buy one.

fez · 20 Jun 2012 at 15:44

mrbell1984 said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but the 13" air was not built for power. I'm angry at your comments.

Its not worth it. If someone hasn't got the common sense to actually think before posting a rant on here then I hold little hope they will listen to sense.

Deleted member 77746 · 20 Jun 2012 at 15:50

fez said:
Its not worth it. If someone hasn't got the common sense to actually think before posting a rant on here then I hold little hope they will listen to sense.

I don't think so.

uvarvu · 20 Jun 2012 at 15:52

You can put a Core i7 in the air if you like - what more do you want!!??

Skyboat · 20 Jun 2012 at 17:07

Like someone else has said, there is literally no room to cram in a discrete GPU into the 13" MBP. The new 15" MBP (both Retina and non-Retina) can do it because there's just more space, even more with the Retina as the ODD takes up a LOT of space.

lamboman · 20 Jun 2012 at 17:13

Disco Boy said:
2ghz vs 2.9ghz is quite a big difference in performance really. For me the other big advantages are the ability to upgrade RAM and HDD.

That's the other thing, why can you not get a quad core 13"? It makes no sense at all.

Take a look at the benchmarks, not the clock speeds. The benchmarks do not show a 50% difference.

Rather than complain about Apple not putting a quad core processor into their smallest notebooks, why not take a look around and see if you can find any other 13" quad core models? You will struggle.

The only thing that anyone can agree with here really is the display.

Finally, as for the 13" Air not being upgradable...why not just buy the spec you require in the first place? You still haven't stated what you will use the machine for, if you are indeed intending to buy.

Tunney · 20 Jun 2012 at 17:17

Skyboat said:
Like someone else has said, there is literally no room to cram in a discrete GPU into the 13" MBP.

My 2010 13" MBP disagrees with you.

Deku · 20 Jun 2012 at 17:51

Nope it doesn't bother me

AbsenceJam · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:24

Tunney said:
My 2010 13" MBP disagrees with you.

That's also an IGP.

Disco Boy · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:43

mrbell1984 said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but the 13" air was not built for power. I'm angry at your comments.

I didn't claim that it was. I am in no way saying that the air is a bad machine. It's fantastic.

fez said:
Its not worth it. If someone hasn't got the common sense to actually think before posting a rant on here then I hold little hope they will listen to sense.

About what did I not think? You have not actually said what you disagree with me about.

lamboman said:
Take a look at the benchmarks, not the clock speeds. The benchmarks do not show a 50% difference.

Rather than complain about Apple not putting a quad core processor into their smallest notebooks, why not take a look around and see if you can find any other 13" quad core models? You will struggle.

The only thing that anyone can agree with here really is the display.

Finally, as for the 13" Air not being upgradable...why not just buy the spec you require in the first place? You still haven't stated what you will use the machine for, if you are indeed intending to buy.

Fair enough, I hadn't considered there not being any other 13"ers with a quad core. This isn't a reason in itself for them not making one though.

And like I said, the screen is the main reason why I wouldn't buy one.

Of course I would buy the spec I require to begin with. But like most people I like to upgrade my machines as components get cheaper and programs/ work become more demanding. For example the price/capacity of SSDs and RAM will come down massively over the lifespan of a mac laptop (~3 years) so why wouldn't you want to be able to capitalise on that?

Tunney said:
My 2010 13" MBP disagrees with you.

Exactly.

AbsenceJam said:
That's also an IGP.

Not really though is it? It's a discrete chip and not part of the CPU.

Mattus · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:46

Disco Boy said:
The MBP 13" is just an absolutely terrible purchase.

Not really. I'm pretty happy with mine. Even the 2.3Ghz i5 with turbo boost is perfectly fast enough for most stuff... plus it has excellent build quality, decent battery life and the best keyboard and trackpad in the business. I don't know if they could fit a discrete GPU in - the case is pretty full already.

The only downers are the screen resolution and the default 5400rpm hard drive (but you can easily spec an SSD or fit one yourself). The low res might rule it out for you, but it's a bit unfair to dismiss the whole product as toilet when it clearly isn't.

Disco Boy · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:48

Mattus said:
The only downers are the screen resolution and the default 5400rpm hard drive (but you can easily spec an SSD or fit one yourself). The low res might rule it out for you, but it's a bit unfair to dismiss the whole product as toilet when it clearly isn't.

I was being deliberately inflammatory with my use of the "adjective "toilet". But I stand by saying that a resolution of 1280*800 on a £1k+ laptop is a very poor show and, for me, ruins it.

The 5400rpm drive is acceptable only because you're fairly likely to bin it and replace with something better anyway. But I guess it is also a good demonstration that these aren't really a pro grade laptop, they are for people who want a shiny mac.

Mattus · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:55

Disco Boy said:
But I guess it is also a good demonstration that these aren't really a pro grade laptop

It's a marketing term, especially now you can't get a plain 'MacBook' any more. 'Radeon 9800 Pro' had 'pro' in the name too, but you wouldn't have used one for professional graphics work!

What does 'pro' even mean in the context of a laptop user? A professional graphic designer? Professional web developer? Professional gamer? Professional accountant? You can't really say that it's not a 'pro grade' machine because 'pro' is meaningless on its own. One type of 'pro' might want a higher resolution, but another might prefer longer battery life.

uniQ · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:57

Disco Boy said:
Not really though is it? It's a discrete chip and not part of the CPU.

No, it's an IGP. Custom made for Apple at the time.

An Nvidia spokesperson told AppleInsider Tuesday that the new 320M was made especially for Apple, and is the successor to the GeForce 9400M, introduced in 2008. The 320M is an integrated graphics chipset for notebooks based on Intel's Core 2 Duo line of processors.

According to Notebookcheck.net, the 320M does not have dedicated graphics memory, but uses shared memory for the system for its graphics processing, giving it poorer performance than a GPU with dedicated memory. The 320M (not to be confused with the GeForce GT 320M) is based on the GT216 core, and offers 48 shader cores.

Disco Boy · 20 Jun 2012 at 18:58

To me it means the same as a business laptop, so favouring performance over expense because it's a tool, and maximising productivity is vital.

Mattus · 20 Jun 2012 at 19:12

Disco Boy said:
To me it means the same as a business laptop, so favouring performance over expense because it's a tool, and maximising productivity is vital.

Heh. Favouring performance over expense is precisely the opposite of what many businesses do regarding computer hardware! Relatively few businesses would give you a Mac in the first place.

I think it's fairer to compare it to the competition than to focus on some arbitrary label. What's the best 13" Windows laptop you can get for the same price?