MacBook negative reviews

Faustus · 22 Apr 2011 at 19:53

I can't help wondering if Apple are not taking their loyal customers somewhat for granted with the latest refresh of the 13" MacBook? I have read a number of negative reviews about this particular iteration, the latest being THIS

It doesn't make me feel very positive about the imminent refresh for the iMac or the rumored refresh for the Mac Mini in particular as the Mini has the same specs as the previous 13" MacBook.

Disco Boy · 22 Apr 2011 at 19:53

I think you mean the macbook pro.

I think the only real disappointment is the res of the screen (and lack of option to spec a higher-res one) myself.

8t10 · 22 Apr 2011 at 20:47

There are plenty of things I'd have liked on the new one, which aren't there, but look at how small it is! I would like the fight the corner: they just couldn't fit it all in.

Rainmaker · 22 Apr 2011 at 22:47

I got a new 13" and tbh the only thing I'd really have liked is a slightly higher res (preferably 16:9) screen and maybe the addition of page up, page down, home and end buttons.

Unless you can count the fact that Finder doesn't have Cut (WTF?!). But I digress. Overall very impressed and wouldn't swap it for another type of laptop (except maybe a 15") for the world.

squerble · 22 Apr 2011 at 22:49

Rainmaker said:
Finder doesn't have Cut (WTF?!).

{edit} nvm.

Faustus · 22 Apr 2011 at 23:08

I think the point being made and one I tend to agree with is that it's virtually the same as it's predecessor so could hardly be called new. I know that on a well known Mac forum there is frenetic anticipation about the Mini refresh and what that will bring to the table. I think if it's anything like the 13" MBP which the current Mini is based on then there are going to be a lot of disappointed people.

You could argue that the forum in question is U.S. based and as such the anticipation is way over the top bordering on hysteria as we Brits tend to take such matters in our stride.

Margaret · 23 Apr 2011 at 05:12

Personally I'm annoyed they went back to Intel graphics. The new base model MBP uses an Intel HD 3000 (or something?) and it's actually a fair bit worse than the 9400M or GT 320M they used to use.

Intel graphic chips suck.

mikeyp123 · 23 Apr 2011 at 06:00

Really should just be the base macbook and leave the pro tag for discrete graphics card. Saying that, I am using mine along my W7 sig rig and i end up doing all my emails/photos/word processing/work/internettage and just end up playing rome total war on my desktop ^^

Dewotter · 23 Apr 2011 at 07:01

Margaret said:
Personally I'm annoyed they went back to Intel graphics. The new base model MBP uses an Intel HD 3000 (or something?) and it's actually a fair bit worse than the 9400M or GT 320M they used to use.

Intel graphic chips suck.

It's notably better than the 9400M. Windows drivers for it suck but OS X got very good ones. very happily running TF2 at the default settings with no problems.

Disco Boy · 23 Apr 2011 at 11:07

Rainmaker said:
(preferably 16:9) screen

You absolute weirdo, who wants a 16:9 computer screen :confused:

800 is too few vertical pixels as it is.

8t10 · 23 Apr 2011 at 12:45

Margaret said:
Personally I'm annoyed they went back to Intel graphics. The new base model MBP uses an Intel HD 3000 (or something?) and it's actually a fair bit worse than the 9400M or GT 320M they used to use.

Intel graphic chips suck.

All the benchmarks I've seen put it above them..? I'm in the same boat as you anyway, I'd rather have Nvidia. But Apple and Intel are very close recently...

@Rainmaker: Home and end are cmd + up or down. Page up and down I don't use but have a google.

pingwing · 23 Apr 2011 at 13:48

That review is very confusing, it's almost apple bashing for the sake of it in a way. There is a point that it is very expensive and the graphics card point is valid to a degree in that potentially there could have been a better solution (or will be come ivy bridge) but one of the negative points of it being underpowered it is laughable as it as a 2.7ghz dual core sandbridge processor! Hardly think that could ever be seen as a slouch...

The blu-ray thing is strange too as I dont see the need for it in a laptop, its not like everything is on blu-ray or anything other than the 17" screen is big enough to play one at full resolution anyway...

Think the reviewer has treated it as a normal laptop but gone into apple bash mode for not really looking at the target audiences (as not every computer is aimed at everyone, that'd be a bit selfish)

Pav89 · 23 Apr 2011 at 13:50

8t10 said:
All the benchmarks I've seen put it above them..?

Check this out, processor wise, 2011 beats 2010 hands down. Graphics wise? The 2010 has a slight edge, especially when the settings are cranked up.

http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/

Also, the review in the OP is unfair to be honest. They're rating the whole system on the price tag and haven't even gone into the operating system level.

shez · 23 Apr 2011 at 16:00

I bought a base model 13" MBP about a month ago. I am so glad I made the switch from PC's, quite simply a joy to use. I am not bothered about graphics, it plays 1080p flash and I don't play games. If you want to play games, get an Alienware or something.

theheyes · 23 Apr 2011 at 18:58

The review is quite frank, but it's not altogether unfair. Bluray would be a great addition (not just for films, but for backups) and getting more performance from an equivalent price PC laptop is a valid point.

Labeling DisplayPort as a "strange" Apple addition though is a bit much, and to give it an overall score of 2/5 is ridiculous. The MBP is not a 2 star computer by any stretch of the imagination.

Westyfield2 · 23 Apr 2011 at 19:21

Like all Mac computers this one runs the Apple Mac OS operating system, not Microsoft's Windows. This means Windows programs won't work with it

No way!!!!

HarryPainful · 23 Apr 2011 at 19:35

I bought a MBP 15 last year, the i5 one and was less than impressed.

The thing that bothered me most was how hot it got under normal use, under heavy use it was simply to hot to have on your legs, hands whatever.

Reviews are just opinion, and imo the MBP range of machines are way over hyped, over priced and painfully hot to use.

The imac on the other hand, great machines.

Margaret · 23 Apr 2011 at 21:17

8t10 said:
All the benchmarks I've seen put it above them..? I'm in the same boat as you anyway, I'd rather have Nvidia. But Apple and Intel are very close recently...

@Rainmaker: Home and end are cmd + up or down. Page up and down I don't use but have a google.

The 320M is better but I could be wrong about the 9400M.

http://www.macworld.com/article/157931/2011/03/early2011macbookpro.html?lsrc=top_2

However some benchmarks on others sites have different results so it's a bit confusing, I however actually know somebody with the 2011 base MacBook Pro and he cannot run Portal 2 as well as my 2010 MacBook can. Both running it in Windows 7.

I don't really see the point in the base MBP, they might as well just put the SD card into the MacBook and phase out the base MBP. There's nothing pro about it, aside from the SD card slot...just seems like a pointless sku to me.

Edit: Also it seems the HD 3000 runs games slightly better in OS X, but in Windows the 320M pulls quite far ahead. Shouldn't really be gaming in OS X though, Windows performance is so much better for every game out there. :/

StarCraft II and Civ V run so much worse on OS X, I can run them both on quite high settings on Windows but in OS X I have to drop them right down, it's kinda annoying having to boot into Windows for the performance/eye candy boosts.

Faustus · 23 Apr 2011 at 21:32

pingwing said:
That review is very confusing, it's almost apple bashing for the sake of it in a way. There is a point that it is very expensive and the graphics card point is valid to a degree in that potentially there could have been a better solution (or will be come ivy bridge) but one of the negative points of it being underpowered it is laughable as it as a 2.7ghz dual core sandbridge processor! Hardly think that could ever be seen as a slouch...

The blu-ray thing is strange too as I dont see the need for it in a laptop, its not like everything is on blu-ray or anything other than the 17" screen is big enough to play one at full resolution anyway...

Think the reviewer has treated it as a normal laptop but gone into apple bash mode for not really looking at the target audiences (as not every computer is aimed at everyone, that'd be a bit selfish)

If you read most Computeractive reviews for Apple products they are almost sycophantic in their love of all things Apple. It was for that reason I selected this particular review, though there are other reviews out there in a similar vein.

Faustus · 23 Apr 2011 at 21:37

They're rating the whole system on the price tag and haven't even gone into the operating system level

It's the same OS as the outgoing model, so what extra is that bringing to the table?

I consider the review to be more than fair and balanced. I think Apple are taking their customers for granted with this refresh. The attitude appears to be "oh it's got the Apple logo on it so the punters will still buy it". Apart from a speed bump what's new?