Apple upgrades MacBook Pro line with faster processors, gfx cards, more storage | Hacker News Reader

Apple upgrades MacBook Pro line with faster processors, gfx cards, more storage

thisismynext.com

86 pointsukdm117 comments

I'm never buying a computer that lacks an SSD again. SSDs make launching programs instantaneous, compiling code much faster, and rebooting and/or switching user accounts painless. These things save me so much cumulative time, and when I touch a computer without an SSD it's a shock to the system.

Hi Andrew,

what about the reliability? It seems that SSD's are at least twice as prone to irrecoverable crashes as mechanical drives (excluding cases of physical damage like the laptop falling off the desk)? What is your experience?

On topic - the quad core Sandy Bridge is already extremely powerful, these laptops will last for years to come performance-wise...

Use a backup system. A factor of 2x isn't life changing. The cost of crash recovery is more than balanced by the improved productivity pre-crash.

If only there was one built in to the operating system...

I get the feeling Apple knows and uses extremely SSD upgrades to drive higher checkout prices with artificially depressed advertised prices. (Yes, I am bitter that my old MBP is not user upgradeable. I understand that the newer ones are, though.)

There are guides at http://www.ifixit.com/

You can look through the steps it would take to see if your comfortable doing it yourself.

I have done many repairs on my MBP and they were pretty easy. just required patience.

If one were to get a MBP with the standard Serial ATA Drive, could it later be replaced with SSD? I've never seen an SSD drive, I'm wondering if the conector is the same as Serial ATA?

I'm thinking I might just get the standard drive and upgrade it aftermarket.

Yes, many SSD's use SATA.

I've done this with the two MBP's we have at our house. It was very simple (around 8 screws). Just make sure you have a tiny screwdriver set (like those used for glasses). You can usually search for macbook screwdriver and find ones that work for <$10

> I've never seen an SSD drive, I'm wondering if the conector is the same as Serial ATA?

Yes, modern off-the-shelf SSDs in a normal package use SATA (what else would they use?).

They look exactly like your standard 2.5" drive, except without breathing holes and sometimes thinner with a spacer to reach normal 2.5" height.

To see what SSDs look like, just click around in Anandtech's storage articles category[0], just ignore PCI-E SSDs (they're a bit of a special case)

[0] http://www.anandtech.com/tag/storage

Was about to post price comparisons but YEESH Apple is selling 256GB SSDs [0] for $200 more than Crucial SSDs on NewEgg. [1]

[0] http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD318LL/A?select=select&...

[1] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148...

All MacBook Pro models are upgradeable, you just need the right kit. http://macsales.com/ usually has you covered, just pick your model and you can see what options you have. There's even a way to replace your usually useless optical drive with a special bracket for an SSD drive.

> Yes, I am bitter that my old MBP is not user upgradeable. I understand that the newer ones are, though.

As far as I know, there has never been a non-user-serviceable unibody MBP. Pre-unibody MBP (using the old Powerbook design) essentially weren't as you had to take apart half the machine to get at its guts, but all unibody MBPs are as simple to service as 10 screws holding the bottom plate (you may need to get a non-philips scredriver for some series in some countries).

My 2010 MBP even described the operation to change RAM and HDD/SSD in the booklet shipped with the machine.

Yep. Since I have an MBP, it is engineered to survive more than 4 years (after warranty and class action mandated repairs). Mine is pre-unibody.

I wonder about this. I had an SSD on my macbook pro for about a year, before taking it out and putting in my desktop. The only noticeable difference, in my opinion, was boot time and applications start up a bit faster. Normal daily work (I'm a programmer) was not affected much. I got the biggest improvement from maxing out ram at 8GB.

I wonder though if this was merely an artifact of Snow Leopard not optimizing for SSDs. On my Windows 7 box it's amazing how much faster an SSD is.

I find 1280x800 for 13'' and 1440x900 for 15'' pathetic. I have a 15'' ThinkPad R60 with 2048x1536, yes, you read that right.

But today not even ThinkPad screens have a good resolution, X220 has a 1366x768 screen. I had a better screen resolution in 1995.

I like MacBooks and ThinkPads from a hardware perspective but I won't buy a new one until they start using higher resolution screens.

That's the exact same reason I haven't yet bueyd an macbook, they're resolutions are utterly low. I hope Apple will start to innovate more rather than bumping to the newest CPUs/GPUs each year.

I think there was a drop in screen resolution with most laptop vendors, not only Apple.

  I like MacBooks and ThinkPads from a hardware perspective but I
  won't buy a new one until they start using higher resolution screens.

They have higher resolution screens. My 15" MacBook Pro has got 1680x1050, at the store they'll actually ask you what resolution you want. The only thing I regret is not getting a glossy display (the non-glossy one is way uglier). 2048x1536 is not available though, as far as I know - I don't think I'd have opted for that even if they did, but that's a matter of preference (and eyesight I suppose).

But you're right, 1440x900 shouldn't be the default config for the 15".

  I had a better screen resolution in 1995.

Wow, you must have had so much better hardware than me in 1995! ;-) I vaguely recall my flickering 1024x768 workstation from that era, it was monstrous.

I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model?

In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close to 100 pounds).

  I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. 
  Is this true also for the 13'' model?

I'm not sure, but probably not.

  In 1995 I had a massive 24'' Trinitron CRT (I think it weighted close 
  to 100 pounds).

I remember those! Around that time I did my first experiments with multi-screening (smaller than 24" though) and at one point the table collapsed underneath the rig!

Those were the times... I remember when a desk cracked under pressure from the monitor... ;)

> I didn't know that they have optional higher resolution screens. Is this true also for the 13'' model?

Nope, even though they have it on the Air (it's kind-of retarded, the 11" Air has the same resolution as the 13" MBP (roughly, 1366x768 versus 1280x800 so the 11" Air has a slightly higher pixel count), and the 13" Air has the same resolution as the base 15" MBP).

Considering their previous behavior, at one point Apple will make 1680x1050 standard on the 15" and make 1440x900 a BTO option on the 13", but I don't understand why they have not done so already.

They might be waiting to drop the 13" MBP altogether (replacing it with the Air) if they ever redesign MBPs, in which case you'd have the 11" Air in 1366x768, the 13" in 1440x900, the 15" Pro in 1680x1050 and the 17" in 1920x1200

Similarly, if you want 1440x900 in a 13", get a MB Air.

I would, if it had firewire, I'm doing audio work as a hobby and have some pro audio interfaces.

It has firewire if you hook it up to a thunderbolt display :).

What I really want is a 15" quad-core macbook air.

If you're willing to shell out for the Thunderbolt Display, it has FireWire. Think there are much cheaper/smaller FW/TB converters on the way as well.

cause glossy causes reflections and sucks. non glossy is for people who actually work on their laptops glossy are for people who wanna show off. the latter generally dont need a high resolution, and people dont notice its of lower rez when they're showing off. only by using it.

thats how the glossy trend started, too

sorta sad if you ask me

Completely unnecessary comment.

But as an anecdotal counterpoint I love glossy screens. The colours are more vibrant and there is less of the "soft fuzz" that matt screen surfaces cause to the image.

I use my laptop as a workhorse for hours at a time without an issue.

Different people like different things. Who knew?

They offer optional 1680x1050 glossy or anti-glare 15" screen for $150. I especially like the 1050 part, 16x10 screens are so much better for coding.

Yes, they are. I didn't know about the optional 1680x1050, the massive price is unjustified IMHO.

I would pay $150 for 1680x1050 on the 13'' model though.

OSX still isnt resolution independent like Windows 7 is for example. The interface would be tiny on a 13" running 1680x1050. I think thats one of the main reasons they dont go for higher resolutions.

Even on my 15" with 1680x1050 its pretty small.

I've got 1920x1200 on my 2007 MBP, which is the older 'higher resolution screen' option for the MBP, and OSX' resolution dependence is a serious pain in the butt. I've been holding off on upgrading my MBP until some progress is made in this department, but it looks like it won't be for another year.

This is 17" inches though, correct?

The Vaio Z has an option to get 1920x1200 (or is it 1920x1080?) last time I looked and it is only 13" I believe. It does come at cost though and does not run Mac OS X. However, the option is there. I think the default is even 1600x900 which is still better than 1280x800. Which is what I'm stuck with since I currently have the 13" Macbook Pro.

I wish Apple would increase the resolution also, I've been holding off upgrading as well. I'm tempted to even go as far as getting the 17" with the higher resolution next time. Then again, I would have to buy all new laptop bags since none of mine would fit and I'm kind of a bag fiend, I go for those nice Waterfield Designs bag and currently love my Muzetto. Buying another, larger version would not be cheap.

Like i said, the interface would be unusable small with 1920x1080 on a 13" device.

Perhaps for some people. I would love it though. I can fit so much more on my screen making me feel greatly more productive. For example, having 4 vim split windows open and viewable all at once.

> I had a better screen resolution in 1995.

It's worth pointing out that resolution is one thing, and pixel density another. We're moving towards much denser displays—in fact, Lion has some neat resolution independence features built-in—but we're probably another refresh off seeing them.

I think we're moving towards much denser displays for phones and tablets, but not yet laptops. There were various dense displays in the last 10 years, but they didn't become market standard.

And I'm pretty sure I had higher pixel density on my 1995 Trinitron than in my 2011 high-resolution ThinkPad ;-).

I had a 15" 4x3 1600x1200 CRT screen that was perfectly sharp in 1997. And on my desktop I still have an 15" 1280x1024 LCD one from 2004; I think that in 2005, I wasn't able to get a 15" one anymore, and had to get a 17". And these days, even 17" ones with 1024 or 1080 lines are not that popular.

My friend had a Sony laptop with 1900x1440 14" display, which was a little pricey for me at the time, so I didn't get it. But it was definitely not the only one available. These resolutions are even less common today.

Or, in the words of kids today, WTF?

> We're moving towards much denser displays—in fact

No, not on laptops. Colleagues had 1920x1200 15" laptops in the early 2000s. Laptop screen densities have been going down, and the 1366x768 resolution is a fucking plague these days.

OS X doesn’t have resolution independence. That’s why the resolution is what it is.

Apple tried (for years) and it was working – more or less – but with Lion they just dropped that. What they have now is a HiDPI mode which quadruples the size of UI elements. It’s not yet completely done (some bitmaps still have to be updated). They are following the lead of iOS in that respect.

What this hints at is a 2880×1800 screen in some future 15" MBP. To figure out when a MBP like that will arrive you only have to find out when it becomes feasible to sell it for around $2000 (while also keeping the performance and battery life at least constant).

I’m not sure whether it’s currently even possible to buy 2880×1800 panels for any price, not sure where screen technology is standing in that respect. By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display.

Because of the greater viewing distance to a laptop panel they should still be able to give it the "Retina" tag.

Not sure what resolution independence has to do with available screen resolutions. Apple already offer multiple resolutions (mine's the 15" with 1680x1050).

Because anything beyond 1440 is uncomfortable for large numbers of people. 1680 is sort of ok but would suck as a default.

Agreed, when I first got my MBP at 1680x1050 I found it extremely tiring on my eyes when I used it for periods of time (as little as 30 minutes). I guess I've gotten used to it though.

That's true, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. OP wanted higher resolution screens, and Apple produce them.

For one model. You have to pay extra. And in the grand scheme of things it’s not a very large increase. (Besides, the OP was corrected on that point already – more than once. I didn’t think it was necessary to also correct him or her. That would have been redundant.)

What I wanted to try and explain was why Apple didn’t substantially and across the line increase the resolution of its computers during the last years, option for a bit more resolution on the 15" MBP notwithstanding.

It's 36% larger, which is fairly significant - and of course you have to pay more for it - you're getting more.

My point is that I don't think resolution independence has a great deal to do with it. Very few Windows laptops offer much option either (the Dell ones I've just looked at offer 1366X768 and that's it, and from when I last looked round at laptops this seemed to be pretty standard). The reason is simply that companies like to limit the range of products they need to manufacture. Making the same size screen with 15 different resolutions would be hugely costly compared to sticking with 1 or 2.

You wouldn’t have to pay extra if the extra resolution were default. (You would, but I guess you know what I’m talking about.)

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Apple can’t just increase the resolution for everyone and that’s what they would like to do. To be able to do that they need resolution independence.

No I don't know what you're talking about. Are you trying to suggest that if MacOS were resolution independent, they would start including 1680x1050 as standard on all 15" Macs?

They would be able to increase the resolution, sure. Why do you think otherwise?

They would be able to. But that's not what I asked. The question was - would they choose to?

As I've mentioned, few if any PC laptop manufacturers choose to, so is there any reason to think that Apple would?

Retina iPhone.

And this isn't limited to Apple - Android manufacturers offer handsets in a variety of different resolutions. But that variety is not reflected in typical Windows laptops, so clearly the mobile phone market is not a good comparison for the laptop market.

Sigh. Well, then. I guess you just don’t get it.

You're right. I don't.

No one is upset by high resolution or DPI. They are upset that Apple ships a 150dpi system with a 120dpi UI.

Isn't Quartz 2D providing resolution-independent and device-independent rendering of bitmap graphics ?

I have no idea. I was mostly paraphrasing what I read in John Siracusa’s Lion review: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.a...

You must have absolutely amazing eyesight. 2800x1800 is entirely too many pixels on a 15" screen. I could see a resolution that extreme on a 27" iMac, or possibly even a 21.5" iMac, but on a 15" screen, no way.

Resolution for resolution's sake is pointless if its not useable.

That’s what the HiDPI mode suggests, though. If Apple wants to keep the size of UI elements constant (and I’m guessing they don’t want to make them larger) they have to quadruple the resolution. Anything less and they give the user less space to work with.

This has not much to do with eyesight. UI elements would stay exactly the same size. That’s the point. It would be like the change from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4.

This is the point of resolution independence. Increasing resolution only shrinks graphical elements if the operating system isn't smart enough to render them using more pixels. With good resolution independence moving a higher resolution screen will make everything look sharper (higher pixel density) but not significantly smaller (same physical size).

Compare the screen on the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 3G. Graphical elements are the same size on both but the iPhone 4 has twice the resolution.

> By the way, a 2880×1800 15" panel merely (well …) has 230 PPI. Apple couldn’t even call it a Retina display.

Whether a display is "retina" or not depends upon how far the display is from your eyes. I could definitely see Apple stretch a 230 PPI display to be "retina" by arguing that you sit further from your laptop than your smartphone. I haven't done the math, so this is all speculation.

I wonder what the graphics performance on a laptop with a 2880x1880 display would be. Intel's integrated GPUs are the only sane option while on battery and they notoriously slow.

The X220 is a poor candidate to complain about. It is their ultralight, ultraportable model. If you are unwilling to sacrifice specs for size, weight and battery life, then it's the wrong model for you in the first place.

Erm, no. The X200, their previous model, has a better 1440x900 screen. Screen resolution has nothing to do with portability, there's nothing to sacrifice. All previous X series models had the high resolution option, now with the latest model it's just not there.

And it's not only the X series that doesn't have good screens anymore.

I have 5 ThinkPads, all of them high resolution, and all of them have a higher resolution than any ThinkPad sold today. And I own two X series models.

Ah, you are talking about a lack of a high-res option. I was not aware they got rid of that.

If I had to guess, I'd bet lack of demand killed it off. Most people seem comfortable with the standard resolutions of today, and if I recall from my X61, the high-res screen was an extra $200.

As for portability, I believe a higher resolution screen tends to result in a small hit on battery life, and the back of my mind is telling me they tend to be bulkier. Grain of salt though.

It seems that you still can't get a gaming-worth MacBook (upper model discrete GPU) for less than 2500 bucks when spec'd appropriately. A PC-based laptop with Core i5 and AMD HD6630M (also used in the upper model Mac Mini) goes for $950 and is smaller/lighter than the 13" MBP, or $850 with a GT 540 and similar size/weight.

I noticed that you can't get a reasonable graphics card in the 13" model anymore. That was actually a feature that helped convince me to switch back -- I wanted a portable laptop with some gaming options. Intel HD Graphics 3000 doesn't really cut it.

Ah, well. It may well return in a future model.

Yeah, I got the mid-2009 13-inch MBP, with the NVIDIA Graphics. Still waiting on newer 13-inch MBPs with NVIDIAs / ATIs, though. Very sad they decided to switch back to Intel... :/

Still waiting on newer 13-inch MBPs with NVIDIAs / ATIs

Those are probably never going to come; there physically isn't room.

I am optimistically holding out for a 15" Macbook Air with 8GB RAM. Failing that within the next 6-9 months, my next Macbook will be the 13" Air

I'm personally hoping they redesign the MBP such that it loses the optical drive, keeps the 2.5" drive bay, and adds the flash storage from the Air (or something equivalent). A HDD+SSD combo in a laptop would be ideal. They should at least do this in the larger 17" model, if not the others.

If that never happens, I'm just going to get an Optibay or equivalent.

Same here... 15" MBA is what I've been waiting for for a long time. I'm on 2nd generation 15" MBPro, which can die any day now. Not sure why this is not considered a priority for Apple, since it would be a perfect work machine (13" is just too small).

i was holding out hope for the same thing, based on rumours flying around this summer that the next MBP update would essentially merge the air and pro lines. with todays refresh, it looks like that probably isn't happening.

the first company to release a 15" 1080p "ultrabook", whether it's apple or one of the windows manufacturers, will get my money.

I went to see if I could load one up with more than 8GB of memory, and alas, one still cannot get this for any amount of money.

I may be the fringe, but a 16GB MBP would be very hard to beat.

You can get 16GB upgrades from OWC... And as a related point maxing out memory directly from Apple has always been more expensive.

You're right, but the OWC upgrade is fairly pricey at $629.

I was thinking that if Apple supported it right from the store, it would drive down third party prices?

The 4GB DIMMs were stupidly expensive about a year and a half ago, but they're stupidly cheap now. Give it a year and they'll be $80 each, not $310. There's just not much demand for them yet.

Just curious, what do you do with 16GB that you couldn't do with 8?

I normally always have a Windows VM running, leaving me only 4GB on either side.

Oh, and Skype kills me on the Mac side.

What on earth do you need 4GB for in a Windows VM? I rarely use that with a Windows bare-metal.

If you're multitasking, Windows 7 is noticeably less sluggish with 4GB compared to 2. If you're only using one app at a time, it doesn't really make a difference.

VS 2010, Sql Server, etc...

Just got a 15" MBP, 8GB memory, 500GB 7200 RPM disk, with a Thunderbolt display. What a nice setup. I'm upgrading from a 2007 MBP that died, and the new machine is so much faster. I would have preferred a redesign without the optical drive but that's a minor complaint.

"I would have preferred a redesign without the optical drive but that's a minor complaint."

Thankfully there are ways you can install an extra HD drive bay in your MBP replacing the optical drive.

But most people believe that the big redesign next year will not only include Ivy Bridge and a new form factor but also the removal of the optical drive.

"also the removal of the optical drive" That will make me very, very,...very happy! I hate the idea that I have a thing in my Mac that I don't use and adds extra weight and complexity to the design :|. That will be my main reason to upgrade my 2010 15" hi-res anti-glare Macbook Pro.

(I'm sticking with the Pro line because it has a 15" screen, bellow that I don't like).

similar here - had a 2008 white mbp. got a 15" refurb this summer that was a early 2011 revamp - came with the bumped up gfx chip (which is now standard) and also came with 8gig, even though the store site said 4gig. :)

Would like to get an SSD but don't really want to spring for a 512 gig one, and 256 ones aren't quite enough space for me.

There is a kit so you can pull out my optical drive, put it in an external usb enclosure and put in another HD in your macbook pro.

Found the link: http://www.mcetech.com/optibay/

Was hoping they might have taken the chance to drop the price in the UK to bring it more in line with the US price (a bit above the US price due to VAT of course). Without that change I refuse to buy one.

AFIK, their prices are pretty standard across the world excluding import tariffs, sales taxes and other state-imposed costs. I live in China, where imports are taxed heavily and as a result Apple computers cost nearly 25% more than in the US. In Hong Kong, however, there are no such import taxes and the prices are the same as in the US.

I sincerely doubt Apple is the culprit here.

I havent' done the math recently but even if you assume no sales tax in the US and factor in the 20% VAT in the UK the difference is still large.

In fact lets do it quickly for an Air. In US its $1600 which is pretty much £1000. UK is £1349. US won't have sales tax whilst VAT is 20%, so thats part of the difference but there's an additional £150 overhead. It varies between products and has been documented online before. Other companies do it but I find it pretty blatant with apple products and so tend to avoid their computers.

Here in Brazil the 15" base model costs $ 3,784.00. The same model in the US costs $ 1,799.00.

Taxes are ridiculous around here.

So that's why I was able to pickup a 13" for $999 a couple weeks ago. I figured an update was in order, but I don't really care that much about a modest CPU bump.

Any ideas on when we are going to get MacBook Pros that are Air-like skinny and have incredible battery life?

I pray for it on the next tick cycle, but I can't say about how Apple would feel about merging their different products into essentially 1 line.

I do wish for a 15" High-res Air though.

Apple taking logical steps to streamline and simplify their product line? Did you forget about the MacBook or the Powermac Cube or the CDMA iPhone already?

Extending the MBA line was the first move. It will take at least 2 more overhauls (not CPU upgrades) for the product lines to merge completely.

Well, you could buy a MacBook Air. Actually, I'd like to see an external GPU over Thunderbolt possibly built into the next line of cinema displays, which would remove the need for the GPU in the Pro line.

> which would remove the need for the GPU in the Pro line.

No it would not.

I think by "GPU", it's presumed to mean "non-embedded GPU" as Intel has taken to bundling it with their newer i series chips.

Naturally, it's in that context that I made my reply. I don't see how a laptop without any way to output data would even be considered.

Is the Thunderbolt bandwidth sufficient to run a modern GPU? AFAIK you'd only have one 10 gbit/s lane to use for it, and modern PCIe video cards use a lot more than that connecting directly to mainboards over multiple PCIe lanes...

Light Peak seems to have been sufficient for the Vaio Z.

> and modern PCIe video cards use a lot more than that connecting directly to mainboards over multiple PCIe lanes...

Forgive my lack of a source, but was there not an article (maybe on Anandtech?) about high-end cards being 90%+ as performant on a 4x PCI-e slot?

Yes. Thunderbolt bandwidth falls between a PCI-E 2.0 1x slot and 4x slot.

Tests that have been done comparing the performance of relatively high end desktop cards on 1x, 4x, 8x and 16x slots have established that while there is a performance penalty, such a solution would still out perform most mobile GPUs.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI-Express_S...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_480_PCI-Expres...

They're already pretty thin, my MBP is thinner then I think all laptops I see every day, save for ultraportables. And it (theoretically, since update to Lion and/or the way I work now brought it down to ~3 hours) already has the same (13" MBA) or better (11") battery life.

But are you asking about having so much computing power in MBA-like slim body? Then answer is - not for some time. Intel has Haswell [1] prepared for 2013 - that's the soonest I would expect things to change. There is also second possibility - with rumors of Apple going ARM-only - but even if (and that's pretty big if), we would see Macs with ARM around the time of Haswell introduction.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)

> But are you asking about having so much computing power in MBA-like slim body? Then answer is - not for some time.

I don't know, removing the SuperDrive (whether they leave a second HDD/SSD rack or not) would make for a lot of room in MBPs, I'd say the drive takes more than 25% of the machine's internal volume, maybe up to 30%.

Having an Air-like "bar" SSD with an HDD/SSD rack on top (empty on base machines for instance) and removing the Superdrive would likely pay for most of the slimming towards a wedge MBP shape.

> There is also second possibility - with rumors of Apple going ARM-only - but even if (and that's pretty big if), we would see Macs with ARM around the time of Haswell introduction.

That may happen for the Air, I don't see it happening for MBP.

Intel delayed their next mobile processor revision until March 2012. So I wouldn't expect a new MBP until the Spring.

The main differentiating factor between the Air and the Pro is two cores versus four.

Is your question "when will we have a four-core MacBook Air with the same battery life as the current two-core version"?

My two-core 2011 MBP tends to disagree.

i5 in MBA is still nowhere near power of i5 in my 13" MBP.

Why would you not just buy the Air at that point?

Because some people don't want 15" screen, but still need more power than Air gives you.

If I were buying new computer now, it would be Air, but when I was buying my MacBook Pro, Airs were still using C2D - and since I'm using my computers for years - it wasn't really an option.

And price, weight, ports, and thickness, among many other features. Of all the factors, I don't think 2 vs. 4 cores is the "main" factor.

The rumors say next year but they are just rumors.

I heard a rumor about a rumor coming out next year.

How do you expect a high-performance laptop with high-spec parts to get incredible battery life? (Besides simply waiting for power management to continue to improve)

It wouldn't make sense to ditch the high-spec parts, either- that's what the MacBook Pro is for. If you don't need the top-end bits, get an Air.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com