thinking of getting my first macbook (pro 13)

hey everyone
so i've finally decided to make the switch to OS X. not that i particularly want a switch in OS but i cant seem to find a windows machine that fits the bill for me like the macbook pro 13 does. not to mention whoever i ask who does the stuff i do (music recording, serious photo editing) they seem to be using a macbook

so i decided to go for the higher end 13" - i like it portable and i always find 15" laptops too large/heavy.. and the pro 15 is too expensive for me. and ive been using a Vaio SZ laptop for years, with a 1280x800 screen, so i think the 13" screen should be fine

my question is - i hear that there's a macbook pro update around the corner (early/mid april) - and im wondering if there's gonna be an update to the 13" pro. rumours that ive been reading seem to suggest that the april update will probably be a 15" Pro thats designed along the lines of the Air - and maybe a 14" Air...and that the 13" Pro will probably be updated in June (read this stuff on macworld today)

is this the general idea? due to some complicated reasons, i'll have to buy the macbook early next week (latest) - and i really dont want to buy it and see a new Pro 13" on the apple website the next day! haha

well, let me know wat u guys think.. i'd really appreciate it. thanks for ur time!

 

There is really no way to tell what Apple will do until they officially announce it. Everything that you have read so far is rumor or conjecture based off of very little information that Intel has given the public. Apple might come out with a whole new line of MBP's and MBA's this month or they may wait until later, your guess is as good as anyone else's. Right now, the only release date Intel has given the public has to do with the higher end quad-core Core i7 Ivy Bridge chips. The mid-line models (which would probably be featured in a 13" MBP) still have a later release date or are still TBD.

Either way, you aren't going to find a concrete answer. About the only performance boost in moving to Ivy Bridge will the jump to the Intel HD 4000 IGP. Processors are only going to get a small (~10%) performance increase and that isn't really going to be noticeable. The difference isn't going to be anywhere near the jump from two generations ago to Sandy Bridge. The Intel HD 4000 graphics are supposed to offer a substantial jump though. It is up to you when you buy your MBP. If you can wait it out, you would be better off but it doesn't sound like you have that option.

On a similar note, I highly suggest going with the baseline 13" MBP. The dual-core Core i7 in the higher end model isn't really going to provide that much of a push over the Core i5 except when it comes to encoding videos (and the dual-core Core i5 is no slouch for that either). You would be much better off buying the baseline 13" MBP and investing in additional RAM and an SSD. The SSD in particular will give you performance leaps and bounds over an HDD and would make a much bigger difference than going up to the Core i7 (which is still dual-core) in the 13" MBP.

When I purchased my MBP last year, I went with the Core i7 model and regretted it. I had a friend with the Core i5 edition and his MBP could do everything mine could in about the same amount of time (running extensive MATLAB code, editing photos in iPhoto, loading a large iTunes library, etc.). About the only thing mine did faster was encoding a video in Handbrake and even then it was only shaving off a few minutes on long (1-1.5 hours) projects of converting DVDs using the Apple TV 2 preset.

 

I agree with Kornchild2002: stick to the baseline model. Historically, above-baseline macs have always required an unreasonable premium. Just compare the price of the extras with what you normally pay for parts. Unfortunately, the hard drive isn't user-replaceable any more (unless you don't mind voiding your warranty), but RAM is.

Depending on what you want to do with it, consider forfeiting on the new upped graphics as well - when there's a new lineup, the 'old' one is likely to be sold at a hefty discount.

And there's another thing to consider: first-generation macs have often had their share of trouble. I once bought the first-gen white Macbook, and after two hard drive replacements, two top case renewals, one new screen and a motherboard (you have to wonder why they didn't just give me a new machine) I still owned a device that switched itself off without any warning (later solved by a firmware upgrade), leaving me frantically pressing command-s all the time. The present Sandy Bridge Pros are polished, well-rounded machines, and no one I know has had big problems with them (and I know a LOT of people with MBPs). Being an early adopter means taking risks.

 

Unless you intend to use an external monitor, the MBP 13's low resolution (1280x800) will be confining for "serious" photo editing. I would normally suggest the Sony Vaio SA because it has a 1600x900 screen, but that notebook's screen has subpar color/contrast. That's fine for most folks, but again, not good for photo editing.

In all honesty, I would look at the 13-inch MacBook Air instead. It has higher resolution than the Pro 13 (1440x900), and its built-in SSD will be a godsend for working with large images.

The hard drives in unibody MBPs from at least 2010 onward are considered user-serviceable parts. Even the user manual, which you can download straight from Apple gives you proper instructions. Now if you cause damage to the system as a result of the upgrade, such as snapping the SATA cable, that would not be covered by the warranty.

 

Hm, that's weird. I bought a new MBP only a month ago, and the warranty sticker also covers part of the HDD tray. Must be a mistake, then.

My problem was that the 256GB max for the Air simply wasn't enough to hold my files. My wife's got one, and it's a great machine. Still, I'm much too much of a tinkerer to feel easy at being so separated from the innards of my hardware.

 

thanks for all the replies! yeah, i guess we cant be sure wat apple's gonna come up with. but from wat ive been reading, its gonna be more of the Air-type than the current Pro type.. and i dont think the current Air is suitable for me.

thanks for the tip on choosing the entry level 13 Pro too. tht sounds like quite a saving, if it really doesnt make an impact on performance.. i believe the RAM is the same on both models, so its not really a big upgrade, for around $300.

the main reason for me not wanting the Air or any future model of that type right now is coz the SSD capacities are currently too small for me.. and not affordable. i require at least 500GB and a 500gig SSD would be pretty damn costly. and the Air's 256 isnt enough for me

iljajj, good point about the first gen machines being problematic. i also like the look of the current macbook pro.. and if the future ones are gonna be the 'blade' style body design, i think i'd be happy to get a current pro model before the upgrades. haha

about the scree, well yeah i suppose its not the best screen.. but ive been using my vaio with a 1280x800 resolution, and calibrated.. and ive been doing fine with it.. so i dont think that'll be too much of an issue for me

so u guys have kinda convinced me that its ok not to wait for the upgrade! now i just need to decide for sure if i really want to go for the i7 or the i5. i read a few reviews with benchmarks comparing the two, and the i7 was quite a bit ahead, which is why i thought of going for the high end one n the first place. but if in real world usage the difference is barely noticable , why bother, i guess! thanks guys

 

and one more thing. OS X mountain lion is coming soon. how does OS updates work on mac? do i have to buy it?

 

Yes but the upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion is only $30.

 

oh cool, thats fine then

 

By pure coincidence, yesterday I had the opportunity at a clients' office to compare the i5 and i7 MBP's (both with 8 GB of RAM) side-by-side. Working with a 40-MB RAW image, I noticed near to no difference. If you're going to throw away $300, do it on an 256 GB SSD and this.

 

Apple has been working a little different with their OS updates compared to Microsoft. MS tends to release a major update (i.e. Windows 2000 to Windows XP, Windows XP to Windows Vista, Vista to 7, etc.) once every few years and charges a lot for it. Apple has been releasing smaller incremental updates and charges less. In the end, both workout to about the same price so it doesn't really matter. You can pay $150 for a new version of Windows every 4 years or you can pay $30 a year for a new version of OS X. Financially, they both come out to about the same prices when you add it all up.

Apple will be distributing Mountain Lion through the Mac App Store though. They will not offer it on DVD or even on a USB thumb drive. They didn't offer Lion on DVD either but had an (extremely expensive) option of buying it on a thumb drive. That won't be the case for Mountain Lion so make sure you have access to a fast internet connection somewhere so that you can download a 4GB+ file.

You may not have to buy Mountain Lion depending on when you purchase your Mac. A few weeks before Lion was coming out, Apple was selling Macs with Snow Leopard pre-installed but giving away free vouchers for a download of Lion. If you wait, you might be able to get it for free. Actually, it would be best if you did wait since Apple's back to school promotion should be starting here in a few months. That is when they throw in something with the purchase of a MBP, MBA, or iMac. Last year was only a $100 gift certificate to the Mac App Store but previous years saw Apple including an 8GB iPod touch, an iPod nano, and even an iPod mini (going back to when those were popular).

 

Maybe if you buy the cheaper version of Windows. OS X has many features you won't get without the Ultimate version of Windows, making the price disparity much greater.

Windows Ultimate features that OS X has:
Other languages
Full disk encryption

Windows Pro features that OS X has:
Backup to network locations
Connect to a domain (i.e. Active Directory)

Windows Pro/Ultimate features that OS X does not have:
Run Windows XP programs - note: OS X Boot Camp requires a Windows license, so I don't consider that an inclusion.

Retail Ultimate Upgrade: 219USD
Retail Pro Upgrade: 199USD
Retail Home Upgrade: 119USD

Other languages and FDE make the ultimate version of Windows a must have for me. Meaning OS X is a far greater deal price wise, for my use.

*Source: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare

 

Well, if you want to nitpick, I can buy Win 7 Ultimate for $15 flat and Pro is free if I download it (or $15 on DVD). So for me, OS X is a lot more costly. We could be here all day pointing out small discrepancies but that is not the point. My statement still stands true especially for the average consumer who focuses on Win 7 home.

 

Where do you get it for $15?

Also I think a lot of people change the language in OS X and use backup to network (i.e. Time Capsule). So no, Home doesn't really match up.

 

Problem with that statement is you "think".

 

Most likely through his school/university. I can get Win7 Pro for $70 through mine. Not that good of a deal, I know, since I can get it straight from MSFT with my .edu email for $30.

 

I get it through nunya. Additionally, people around the world might change the language, I don't know. I can tell you that in the U.S., the vast majority of systems sold use English. Additionally, I have yet to come across a single Windows XP, Vista, or 7 user that accesses network backup features built into Windows. So I am inferring results from real world experiences here, not just making statements to try to prove an (in)valid point. Most PC's sold run Windows 7 Home and when a new version comes out, the home editions sell a lot simply because those are targeted towards the average end consumer. So it is a completely fair comparison to make between Win Home and OS X in terms of upgrade prices.

 

I'm assuming by 'nunya,' you mean 'none of your business.'

To each their own then, no need to be rude.

 

I was joking, not meant to be taken seriously since I didn't think it mattered. I get Windows 7 so inexpensive through my university's MSDNA program. You can also easily find the home version for $30 through various promotions that MS and others have from time to time.

 

Ah, sorry then . MSDNAA rocks pretty hard, I got some W7 keys from there a few years ago when it first came out.

 

MSDNAA? I couldn't remember if it was that, MSDNA, or MSDNNA as they all sound right to me. Either way, my university is enrolled in that program through MS. My campus bookstore also sells Office 2010 for Windows and Office 2011 for Mac at $10 each, Windows 7 Ultimate (both x86 and x86-64) for $15, Windows Vista Ultimate for $10, and gives out copies of Windows XP Pro for free. They are all legitimate copies too and not something burned using the computer in the back.

Only MS software is heavily discounted though. The bookstore (or the university) does not offer OS X, MATLAB is still the full student price, AutoCAD is still the full student price, and the same holds true for a bunch of other programs. Only the MS stuff is sold at such inexpensive prices. It also looks like the MSDNAA program will get Windows 8 once that comes out though I have to wait for Parallels to support it.

 

Another reason MS charges so much more for the OS than Apple is because that's all MS has. That's all they sell whereas Apple sells hardware too.

--
Sent from my SGS2 Skyrocket using Tapatalk

 

lol wut?

10char

 

Same difference. MSDN AA (Academic Alliance).

And damn, I wish my school had those low prices. At my undergrad school, Windows XP and Vista were $30 each, legit discs. It just varies from place to place. I have friends that got Windows & Office for free through their school. I'm jealous!

 

I meant computer-wise. Apple can make money from the computer sales so they don't need to charge as much whereas Microsoft doesn't sell any computers (except for the Xbox which isn't what I'm talking about) to make money from.

--
Sent from my SGS2 Skyrocket using Tapatalk

 

That's not really why they charge "so much" compared to Apple. MS offers a bunch of different software solutions to home, business, and enterprise users ranging from operating systems, office productivity software, they now own Skype, server setups, and mobile phone software. MS is into everything and they even make a large portion of money off of every Android phone released. The main difference is that MS releases a new set of operating systems once every few years whereas Apple has lately been pushing out a new OS once every year or two.

Like I said, by the time you add up the costs of buying a home release of Windows every 3-4 years, it is about the same as buying a $30 OS X upgrade (which have been more like service packs lately) every year. They are just two different approaches to different OS strategies. You can add minor upgrades once a year or you can wait things out so that the upgrades seem more major by releasing something every 3-4 years.

 

How is MS making a large portion off of Android?

 

MS owns several patents used by LG, HTC, and and Samsung for their Android smartphones and tablets. I think a website calculated it out and MS essentially gets a few dollar for every smartphone and tablet that those company sell. By the time it all adds up, MS is pulling patent fees from 53% of every Android smartphone sold in the U.S. (55% worldwide). There's even another company called Compal that makes Android smartphones and tablets for other company. Microsoft's deal with them nets MS $28 billion annually.

All of those are patent license agreements where a company is using Android but also using Microsoft patents. About the only company that hasn't folded is Motorola but this all came about when they were being swallowed by Google. Either way, that will all probably change since the big three (HTC, LG, and Samsung) couldn't fend off MS.

 

Honestly if any company is still in the same sentence as Apple financially it's already spectacular. But MS pulls EXTREMELY high profit margins.

Granted, Apple pulls tremendous profit margins as well for a mainly hardware supplier (e.g. compared to Samsung).

 

MS makes about $5USD-$15USD per handset, depending on the manufacturer. They have different deals with different companies. As far as I know, they all settled instead of going to court.

microsoft dollars per android handset - Google Search