New MB Pros: your thoughts?

Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
108
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 2010 13", iPod Touch 4th gen., AirPort Extreme, Mini G4, iPod 30GB w/video
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?
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Singapore
Your Mac's Specs
Macbook Air 11" (2012), Macbook Pro 15" (Early 2008), Mac Mini i5 (2012)
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.
 
C

chas_m

Guest
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.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
306
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro, 2.53 GHz, 4 GB DDR3, 250 GB HDD, 10.6.4
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.
 
OP
iWish
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
108
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 2010 13", iPod Touch 4th gen., AirPort Extreme, Mini G4, iPod 30GB w/video
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.
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.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac * 2.8 Ghz Intel Core i7 * 16GB 1333 Mhz DDR3 * 1TB HD *AMD Radeon HD 6770M 512 MB
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.
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,247
Reaction score
1,834
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
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.
 
OP
iWish
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
108
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 2010 13", iPod Touch 4th gen., AirPort Extreme, Mini G4, iPod 30GB w/video
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.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
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.

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...
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top