2.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 vs 2.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7

13" MacBook Pro.. Talk to me!

Any help is great.

What do you want it for?

Neither. Avoid the 13" MBP like the plague.

Nothing heavy, but lots of things.
Daily internet use.
Some photo editing.
Probably put a few games on it.
School.

I Was looking at the 15" because it has "quad-core" but I looked up the difference between quad and dual-core and I don't see myself needing quad.
I'm wondering whether to put the extra cash down for the 2.7GHz i7 since I plan on having this for many years.

Thanks!

Oh!
Well that's disheartening.
Why?

If you want to play games don't buy a MacBook. However I recommend getting the MB (not pro) with extra RAM (it then has 4GB and intel core 2 duo(2.4GHz)) and only costs ￡940 rather than ￡1000.

Because it's $1200 for no HD screen, intel integrated, worse battery life than last generation, and slow HDDs. The non-mac laptops with sandybridge processors are just about to be rolled out, and you'd be able to find something with similar or better specs, and a larger screen, for less. Also, while the i7 is certainly a better processor, neither are good enough to last you many years.

I'm not getting it For gaming. But I may end up putting some on if I feel so inclined.

You're actually reading my mind on your second point. Thing is, the MacBook Pro was just updated, which is why I'm looking at it now. The regular MacBook has yet to see an update, although it is due for one. If an updated MacBook comes out, I'd go for that with some upgrades no question.

hehe, you mean you don't find a $1500 laptop with intel graphics appealing?

Why does it have to be a macbook?

This, you could get a better spec'd windows laptop for cheaper, and if you're that worried about indie cred just install a linux distro, linux is way more underground.

If you want a thin, portable 13" laptop you can use for web surfing, reports and light tasks, go with the MacBookAir.

If you want a relatively thin and light 14" laptop that can do the same, plus light creative suite apps and some games at 1600x900, go with Envy 14, Acer 3820tg or similar laptop with mid-level video card and high resolution display.

If you want a laptop that can handle demanding creative tasks and run games at 1920x1080, there are a number of windows laptops that can do that, most are really big, heavy and bulky.



In my view, the only reason to go with the 13" or 15" 2011 MBP is if you have to run some software that only runs on OSX, or if you just generally prefer OSX.

The 13" models do not have a dedicated graphics card, only the Intel graphics. They will not run demanding games very well.

The 15" models provide choice of 5490M or 6750M. The 5490M is an entry level card updated with GDDR5. Not many benchmarks yet because it is new, but it probably wont' be great for gaming at 1680x1050. The 6750M is a decent, midlevel laptop card, similar to the 5650M in the Envy 14, but updated with GDDR5, so it should be faster.

Why do you want a Macbook as opposed to another type of PC? There's no reason to forfeit compatibility if you aren't using a Mac specific program.

I gotta chirp in with the others: does it need to be a Mac?

Until recently I didn't realize how ridiculously overpriced their hardware is, when one of my Boss's was considering getting one for his home, and asked me to look over the specs. I was just floored for just how much of an outrageous price they were charging for such mediocre specs. It's worse than designer jeans!

If you are getting it for the "cool" factor or bragging rights, or anything along those lines: Don't, you're wasting your money

If you are getting it for some specific program: look and see if there is a capable Windows/Linux alternative/port of it and save money

If you are getting it because "Macs don't get viruses": You're wrong. Macs DO get viruses, they just don't get Windows viruses. Save your money and do a Win/Lin dual-boot.

If you are getting it because you are a big fan of Mac OS X: Is it really worth those insanely inflated prices?

If you are getting it for work: Get the most expensive one you can, and get your boss to sign off on it as a legitimate work expense so it's a nice tax write-off.


I wouldn't recommend Macbook Airs to anyone: Mac OS X does not support TRIM, and Apple hasn't released any information on when TRIM support will be added. Getting an SSD Mac in the mean time ain't something I would do as the drive's life won't last nearly as long as it otherwise would.

Got a 15" CTO on the way.

I was hoping that Apple would get rid of the optical drive, and go for a hybrid SSD + HDD storage system. But oh well, my early 2008 model wasn't going to last me another 10 months.

Anyway, in contrast to the above posters, I'd certainly recommend a Macbook Pro - but I agree that if you are going to play any games, or do video editing, then you should stay away from the 13". I grant that you can buy a cheaper notebook with, in some sense, better specs (faster CPU, bigger/faster storage, faster GPU, etc.) This is not the only measure of the value of the computer. Having had a few notebooks, both Mac and non-Mac, I've found Macs to just be more satisfying to use. And that's enough reason for me to pay a few hundred dollars of "Apple tax". I don't take the view that I should get a computer I find less satisfying to use just so I can save that amount of money.

Less satisfying? WTH? You basically just said that you spend more money, because it makes you feel smug.

No, that's not what I said. I said it was satisfying to use, not that using it gave me a feeling of self-satisfaction.

I dunno how a slightly different (and more restrictive) OS, and a vague feeling of satisfaction justifies the outrageous price.

If you will be using a laptop 8-12 hours per day for a few years, it should be something that you personally enjoy working with.

Many people simply prefer OSX to Windows - absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I work primarily with Macs at the office and I have a Windows laptop for personal use, but I have owned a previous generation MBP and they are well designed in terms of materials and appearance. Pleasant to look at, nice tactile feel.

Consider this: if a new car were released that was as fast as a porsche, with great mileage and reasonable price, but it was as butt - ugly as the Pontiac Aztek, would you be inclined to buy one?

If I was in the market for a car, hell yes. Function > Fasion a million and one times over

Plus, I don't even know what a Pontiac Aztek is I'm faaaar from a car guy, and with the rising price of gas, the ONLY thing that matters to me in a car is the mileage.


Don't see what that has to do with the OP's question though... :unsure:

I'm not sure what talk of "justification" amounts to here. In one sense, the price is pretty clearly justified - Apple makes a profit from selling at that price.

Of course, you might think what Macs offer are worth the price. That's fine - I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. My suggestion to the OP was just that he might want to take a look at the new MBPs to see if he likes them, and considers it worth the price.

If they released a high performance but less expensive and less glamorous car, yes I would buy it instead. Butt ugly doesn't work in this comparison, because there is not that extreme a difference between a laptop and a mac.

Maybe a better comparison is a porsche compared to a cheaper no-name car with similar specs. A lot of people would choose the porsche for the brand name, but I don't buy into that branding bull****.

I don't think most Windows-based PCs are ugly. I have always found that Macs and Apple products in general don't age well, but I guess that's done on purpose to make people feel they NEED the newest one when it comes out. Plus, I don't live in an Ikea catalog, so it would fit in horribly with my nice decor.

But yeah, go with your gut. I'm really not an Apple fan, but I have my own reasons why. People have their reasons to be Apple fans, and as long as they're intelligent and not just "Macs just work"/"Macs don't get viruses", there's nothing wrong with it.

I find most "gaming-oriented" laptops to be quite ugly, bulky and so heavy as to be inconvenient to lug around, but they are more powerful, faster and cheaper than a MacBook Pro.

This is what I was referring to in my anology.

Yep, agreed.

I don't really see what brands and the like have to do with it. Here's a hypothetical situation: Alice has a notebook she likes using. Her friend Bob wants to buy a new notebook. So Alice recommends that Bob consider buying the same or similar model to hers. Now, surely we wouldn't accuse of Alice of arrogance or elitism or fanboyism just because of this. Isn't it natural and reasonable for Alice to make such a recommendation?

Now add in the stipulation that Alice's notebook is a Mac, and so she recommends that Bob buy a Mac. I don't see why this in itself makes Alice's recommendation anymore arrogant or elitist or whatever. It seems to me that the only good reason for thinking this is because you don't like Macs. Ok, great, but that's kinda beside the point. The issue is whether Alice has good reason to recommend that Bob buy a Mac. And your dispreference for Macs isn't really a consideration against that.