Why the 13" MacBook Pro didn't get a Core i5 upgrade | Hacker News Reader

Why the 13" MacBook Pro didn't get a Core i5 upgrade

arstechnica.com

84 pointssoundsop24 comments

I have one of the last-generation MacBook Pro 13", and it is easily the best laptop I've ever owned. A year later and I can still get 5+ hours of weekend hacking done on it before I need to plug it in. The updates here may not be considerable, but for my money, it's still the best portable laptop around.

Same old Core 2 Duo wouldn't stop me from buying one. The 1280 by 800 resolution, on the other hand, is much more of a bummer.

Indeed. The thing that would make me reconsider replacing my white plastic Macbook most would be better resolution and/or a IPS screen.

I was optimistic about IPS, since they seem to have found a supplier for the iPad. I still use a thinkpad T42p for the UXGA IPS 15" screen, although the 2GB RAM, Pentium M is kind of limiting. (it's no longer my primary machine; 15" 2008 MBP being upgraded to 17" MBP)

Built-in IPS would probably cut into their 24" Cinema Display sales. Especially on the 17", considering it has the same resolution as the 24".

I'm not sure how this'll affect your argument, but I'll wager that 24" CD is on its last legs - to be replace most likely by 21" and 27" that match the screens of iMacs introduced in Oct 2009

I think the 30" ACD is even more at risk, since it has been unchanged in ~forever. It was released in June 2004!

The main reason I got upsold to the 17" MBP in 2009 was that I couldn't bear spending a lot of money on the 15.4" with its adequate but thoroughly mediocre 1440x900 resolution. Its rightful resolution is clearly the now available 1680x1050 when you compare the pixel density with the 17".

Would you take the 15 HD now vs. the 17? There is a very small price delta, and the screen is definitely bigger and is even marginally higher dpi still, on the 17. The 17 is slim, if big, and has an ExpressCard slot (which is possibly a 64GB SSD if nothing else).

The fact that the decent-res is a paid option rather than stock is a bit galling so I'm not sure. I will say that I'm very happy with my 2009 17" and will keep it for a long time.

That is annoying; my Acer Aspire has a 1366 x 768 in 11.6" form factor.

I don't think the i5 and i7 are a "tiny speed boost"; I get a 3x speed boost for things like running unit tests (which benefit from hyperthreading). The Moose test suite took 30 seconds on my old machine (Core Duo) and now takes 7 seconds on my new i7.

Meanwhile, rxvt-unicode still doesn't require a very powerful graphics card.

I was hoping to get one of the 13" Macbook Pros to replace my 3 year old white Macbook. I love the 13" form factor. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough of a performance increase to justify the leap.

So I sprung for the 15" with a high-res screen. That is definitely an upgrade...

Sometimes logic still doesn't make up for disappointment. I guess my way of delaying gratification this time would be "It's not i3/5/7 (is it me or is Intel after BMW number scheme) something and no USB 3.0" and they don't give me an Mac + iPad for Back to School.

It's even worse when part of the logic is "we got a killer deal on these outdated chips".

It feels like this also has something to do with the MacBook Air, which hasn't had an upgrade in quite some time now. It would be suicide to the Macbook Air line if they released another powerful 13" laptop that gave the Air no competitive advantage than simply it's weight.

>It would be suicide to the Macbook Air line if they released another powerful 13" laptop that gave the Air no competitive advantage than simply it's weight.

Isn't that basically the case already? To go from the base 13" MBP to the base Air, you're getting a Core 2 that's .54GHz slower, a worse graphics card, half the battery life, only 2 GB RAM, no optical drive, and only 1 USB port, all for $300 more. All you're getting in return for all of that is the fact that it's super-thin and super-light.

I don't think anyone buys an Air instead of another computer. I see it more as competing with the iPad.

That's probably true. I have a Mac Pro at home where I do most of my real work and an MBA simply for maximum portability. I've started carrying an iPad too (fits perfectly in the side pocket of my MBA case) Together they're a pretty great combo. Kind of like a wireless secondary display for web pages, e-mail, games, etc.

This is the first time I've seen an abbreviation for Macbook Air given as MBA. Fantastic considering the target market.

The whole point of the Air is that it doesn't weigh very much. It weighs the same as a netbook but is much more powerful.

Look at it this way: a 13" Macbook Pro weighs a whopping 50% more and all you get is a CPU that's a little faster, bigger harddrive and an optical drive, which many people don't need. I don't think I've used the optical drive in my MBP 13" for anything other than the OS X system disk once or twice.

You can make the iMac or the heavy MacBooks more powerful, but they will still won't be as portable as the Air.

> Look at it this way: a 13" Macbook Pro weighs a whopping 50% more and all you get is a CPU that's a little faster, bigger harddrive and an optical drive, which many people don't need.

And twice the battery life. That's huge.

True. When the Air came out the 13" MBP with 10 hour battery life didn't exist though. With the recent update of the MBP line the battery life and performance gap between Air and MBPs has widened.

I've been looking to replace my 15" PowerBook G4 for some time now, and really stretched my patience for this update. Going to grad school next year, I wanted something portable, and hoped to buy the 13" the second they gave the line a performance boost. Unfortunately, they skipped over it, and I decided to go with the 15" for the i5. Sure, the Core 2 Duo would have been sufficient for most of my needs, but I play in Photoshop/Logic Pro quite a bit, and knowing that apps like these and more will soon be optimized to take advantage of the threading capabilities, I felt going with the 13" would put me at a long term disadvantage. I guess I sacrificed the portability for what is, to me, a better long term investment. The bigger screen isn't so bad either, although, the new 15"s tend to have a bit more fat around the edges than their PowerBook predecessors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com