New MB Pros: your thoughts?

I was relieved to finally see the MB Pros updated, but I was hoping to see the 13" with an anti-glare screen option like their big brothers along with a 7200 RPM option for the 500GB drive. It would have also been nice to have like an i3 processor (just a name I'm picking) to complement the i5 and i7 of the 15" and 17".

It would seem to me like the 13" Pro is just an aluminum counterpart to the white Macbook with a little more horsepower, a SD slot, and Firewire 800 and not much else. In other words, to me it's like a Macbook on a little shot of steroids as opposed to a true Macbook Pro.

Am I just whining about this, or do I have a legit argument?

The pro's graphic card, firewire, and 10+ hour battery life makes it very well worth the extra couple hundred $$. Plus there's a bit a prestige and professional feeling to the aluminum pros vs the whitebooks. At least in the business/design world.

The glossy screen is a non-issue to most people (evidence: Apple's ever-increasing laptop sales). I don't use mine outdoors a lot, but on those occasions I sit at an angle from the sun and -- miracle of miracles -- its not an issue (more accurately, "no more of an issue than a non-glossy screen outdoors would be").

I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons why a small minority might actually REQUIRE non-glossy, but the market (PC and Mac laptops) has been surprisingly unanimous on this point: it's a non-issue for most buyers.

The new release is enticing, but doesn't really effect my budget which pretty much cuts me off at the 13" model. I'm interested in the elimination of the 2.53 GHz processor and the addition of the 2.66. The battery life is also pretty nice, but I've found the 7 hours advertised on my MBP doesn't hold up.

In actual response to the OP: The SD slot is a pretty big jump, in my opinion. It just adds a level of ease of use that I (as a photographer) use quite a bit. The 13" MBP was actually added as a midpoint between the MB and the 15" and 17" models.

chas_m said:

I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons why a small minority might actually REQUIRE non-glossy, but the market (PC and Mac laptops) has been surprisingly unanimous on this point: it's a non-issue for most buyers.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess then that I am not "most" buyers, and have been frustrated that a simple option of non-glossy in the 15" and 17" can't be extended to the 13" model. Therefore, it must be important to more higher-end users (or those with more $$$) if it's an option for them.

I think if it were offered as an option, more people would get the anti-glare screen. It seems odd to call something a professional computer and leave out the option for something so many professionals would appreciate. But it is the smallest, so maybe they figure a real pro would also want a screen that's larger than 13 inches.

I agree with chas_m, it's a non issue for most folks. Besides, an anti-glare screen is more costly to produce than a glossy one - which would add to the cost of the 13" basic model. And most folks who use their machine professionally (photography, graphic design, etc.) are likely to opt for the larger screen models (15" and 17") which do offer anti-glare as an option. Apple knows what they're doing....

Regards.

These last two are very good points; thanks for putting things into perspective. I still wish the options I listed in the original post were available in the 13", but now it makes more sense as to why they are not.

iWish said:

Well, I guess then that I am not "most" buyers, and have been frustrated that a simple option of non-glossy in the 15" and 17" can't be extended to the 13" model. Therefore, it must be important to more higher-end users (or those with more $$$) if it's an option for them.

Click to expand...

If you want a 13" but can't stand the gloss factor, get a matte screen protector. I use one on my iPhone and it works great. Plus, it'll be a lot cheaper than $50, and you still get the stronger glass of the glossy display.

Just my 2 cents...